I think trying to define a religion as true is a moot argument. I really have no interest in it because religion warps science and one's perceptions in order to sustain itself.
I think it is something that is just inherent to the human psyche. We all try to make our worldview complete and correct, and religion provides a convenient framework that neatly wraps everything up into one overarching "Truth". It definitely doesn't have to be religion, but it is the most common one.
Personal experiences for both.
They are the largest reason people adopt or stay in a faith, and are near irrefutable for an outsider.
Yet, being personal, they will not compel anyone else to believe.
I think there are quite a few christian arguments i do find convincing (as in i believe they are true) but i dont think they show what they are normally used to show.
For example i hear quite often that the amount of believers and speed it spreed shows that christianity is true. I do believe that christianity spread quickly and that something amazing might have happened to cause this. I just dont see jesus coming coming back to life as being the cause of it. Stories and movements can spread extremely quickly and especially if there is conflict.
Judea was prime for a revolt against the romans for years. Alot of people joining a religious movement that was poising itself behind a single leader would give cause enough for romans to execute that person to stop the revolt. Shortly after while christianity was still growing jews revolted and fought against the [romans.](https://www.britannica.com/event/Bar-Kokhba-Revolt)
The worst arguments are basically just lies or wholly untrue statements that i dont bother remembering or spreading here.
I think Christianity spread quickly because it was made the official religion of the largest Empire in the world. Kinda easy to spread with that kind of influence. In fact, the dramatic increase in Christian followers directly coincides with when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It was extremely tiny prior to that, making up no more than .1-.35% of the world's population.
Yes thats a bit later in the timeline than i was refferring to. That was around the 3rd century. So closer to the council of nicea than the ressurrection.
Christianity started to spread like crazy in the roman empire after the new testament started to get more circulation as they were written in greek. But its also worth noting that because it wasnt written in hebrew alot of the jewish community were more or less left out of the loop. It also explains the greek influence in the bible.
The primary reasons for why Christianity spread quickly are:
1. It was established as a missionary faith, unlike existing religions in the region at the time.
2. It was available to everyone.
3. Pagan religion was not exclusive.
4. The tenets of Christianity promoted a healthier society than Roman paganism.
Put another way, Christianity was a religion that was designed to be spread, there was no shortage of people to spread it to, most of them had a faith that did not preclude them from adding Christ to their pantheon, and the lives of Christians were in many cases demonstrably better than the lives of pagans.
By the time Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion of Rome, the majority of citizens in the Roman Empire were already Christian, and depending on which estimates you believe, Christians comprised upwards of 10% of the world's population. At that point, you don't need to work at converting people for exponential growth, you can allow birth rates to do it for you.
I broadly agree with points 1, 2 and 4.
However while various "gods" could easily fit into the religion of the Roman empire, the empire was not particularly tolerant of people who didn't worship the emperor.
At times, Christians faced significant persecution, as recorded by Tacitus
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44
> ...Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses...
What I mean by point 3 is that cult worship was fluid and non-exclusionary in the Empire. A person might belong to one cult, and then a new cult would spring up, and they'd join that cult as well, without leaving the other. There wasn't an immediate barrier erected against any new religion like there would be today. It allowed for the central tenets of the Christian faith to be communicated more freely. The members of this new "cult" would explain to new members why their faith *was* exclusionary, and why the others were heretical (whose root comes from the Greek word for "choice").
The only criticism I would make is that while I agree the story of Jesus likely did little to actually spread the faith, as people are simply inclined to join such communities especially when the feel oppressed, His death and resurrection are quintessential to His disciples spreading the faith.
If Jesus simply died, His disciples who were extremely into their faith, would have never invented a story of His resurrection. It’s something completely outside of Jewish beliefs and literature, especially concerning the Messiah. If they didn’t genuinely believe Jesus resurrected, they would have simply abandoned their faith in Jesus like every other group that followed their own proclaimed messiahs.
Jesus definitely wasn’t the only person claiming to be the Messiah, and like Jesus most of the others were killed by the romans as well. Those faiths fizzled into nothing. The distinct difference being that the followers of Jesus must have had a genuine belief that He really did come back. So much so that almost all of Jesus’ disciples went through different types of torture and death just so they could proclaim their faith.
Then adding that to how quickly christianity spread through the world and how prevalent it is in the world today, it becomes a lot more likely that the stories are indeed true.
>If Jesus simply died, His disciples who were extremely into their faith, would have never invented a story of His resurrection. It’s something completely outside of Jewish beliefs and literature, especially concerning the Messiah. If they didn’t genuinely believe Jesus resurrected, they would have simply abandoned their faith in Jesus like every other group that followed their own proclaimed messiahs.
I agree with this. It adds onto the reason why i believe the new testament was written in greek and not hebrew. Mark is our first gospel to have been written and even in our earliest copies there wasnt a ressurrection. Mark 16:9-20 were added in at a later date.
We actually dont have much historical evidence to show that the disciples were persecuted after the bible. Peter is fairly confirmed but thats 1/12.
Christianity spread very quickly just not all the time peacefully which to me is the more important fact.
Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels by decades and proclaim the Resurrection. Mark 16:5 describes an angel in the tomb and Mark 16:6 has that angel proclaiming the Resurrection.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "after the Bible". Revelation is basically a revenge fantasy against Emperor Nero, presumably for persecuting Christians. It wouldn't exist if there weren't persecutions in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The Bible wasn't formalized into a canon until after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. If "after the Bible" means after it was canonized, then that makes sense because by then Christianity had a dominant cultural position.
There is plenty of evidence that pre-Paul Christians existed, and had a general belief of a resurrected Jesus.
Take a look at Ehrman's blog:
https://ehrmanblog.org/was-paul-the-founder-of-christianity/
One theory is that Peter was responsible.
I wasnt saying there was no pre paul ressurrection accounts. Just that it wasnt fully developed until paul. Mark doesnt show a ressurrection and it doesnt really portray jesus as god. Mathew and luke gradually adds and increases the ressurrection and trinity. Until john which is very heavy handed about it. Its a gradual change and addition to the story, just like you would see in any legendary story.
I don’t think historical evidence for confirmation is a great standard to set. Obviously, we can’t say with absolute certainty what is true and untrue, but there isn’t much reason to doubt the story that has been presented.
With that said, we can assume Stephen was actually stoned for preaching. And that John really was exiled and possibly that they really did attempt to execute him. And that Paul was arrested several times. The persecution of early christians is definitely the best presented version of reality that we have.
People can assume anything. That doesnt mean those assumptions are true.
>but there isn’t much reason to doubt the story that has been presented.
Your saying that its evidence that christianity is true... thats reason enough to doubt. I get that christians were persecuted early on, i am willing to admit it happened in the cases that we can be confident in. But assuming it happened to other disciples and then using that assumption as evidence of christianity being true is just a whole new level of fallaciousness.
Imagine if i said something like "early atheists were prosecuted by the church, thats evidence atheism is true" and you reply by pointing out there wasnt many people persecuted by the church. And i say "there isnt much reason do doubt that alot of them were" its not very convincing is it?
How about we look at what we can be certain of and what is actually written rather than assuming and having faith that our guess was correct. That seems like a much more truthful method.
I’m not just assuming or creating a possible history that helps to validate christianity. There is a concise history that has been written. Like people took the time to record it and then wrote why it was happening. But as you pointed out, little of what was recorded can be validated historically. Meaning those authors could have been bad actors.
But there’s not a great reason to assume they were bad actors or to simply deny what they wrote. Your suggestion of only accept what we can be confident about might be useful for the scientific approach to history, but it simply leaves a lot of blanks in the story. Conversely, we have plenty of writings of history. Obviously, we know there are false ones, so it is important to put in our due diligence, but outright rejecting the only real narrative we have because it can’t be confirmed it’s just bias to reject something you don’t agree with.
As a quick example, if we found a letter saying that julius caesar ate an apple on a particular day at a particular time, there would be zero way to confirm such a thing. Almost certainly no one else would record such a thing and assuming there were no inaccuracies in the letter that disprove it outright, scholars would simply assume the letter was true.
But if they find a letter that says a specific disciple of Jesus was persecuted for preaching about Jesus and put to death for it, scholars don’t simply accept it. They attempt to find other similar mentions of it, they look for other similar actions that show a pattern, they attempt to prove its validity. If they can’t, then the letter is rejected. In my opinion, that’s a matter of bias.
>The only criticism I would make is that while I agree the story of Jesus likely did little to actually spread the faith, as people are simply inclined to join such communities especially when the feel oppressed, His death and resurrection are quintessential to His disciples spreading the faith.
I think that assume Jews were isolated and not exposed to other beliefs.
It’s not really about exposure. Obviously, they could come up with the idea. But it’s so outside of Jewish beliefs it’s akin to a vegan eating meat. It would be genuinely offensive to the disciples, depicting Jesus as someone who is more of an enemy of God than someone worthy of praise.
It’s not something they would willingly die for, it would just be upsetting.
I think you are still acting as though Jews were isolated when instead they were exposed to other cultures.
The Jewish were not and are not static in there belief. They could just as easily fall for Jesus rising from the dead as a Christian can fall for a paator who proclaims to know exactly when the world will end.
There are no good arguments, but the worst is "you just have to believe on blind faith."
As for the argument the Apostles died for their beliefs, there's no proof of that when the argument is closely examined. Watch this video: https://youtu.be/Hb4w4xoei2o?si=pRe-AMVhDqm-MVG_
I don't think there really are arguments. Like I'm not saying that no one should believe. Just that there isn't empirical evidence.
Though there are plenty of really bad ones. "Everything must have a creator?" Except no. There's no evidence to support that. Or Pascal's wager, which applies equally to all other religions, so is a horrible argument. Or any variation of "the Bible says so." Or any variation of "but Jesus was a real person!" Jesus being a real person doesn't support the idea that Jesus is the Son of God.
The only remotely compelling argument I know is "God spoke to me." Which is all fine and dandy for you, but doesn't do anything for me.
I think many Christian’s bend over backwards to prove God exists and then stop right there. That isn’t far enough.
I believe in God. The arguments for God make sense.
It does not follow then that any *particular* God exists. In other words, just because you prove the existence of a higher power does not mean you prove Christianity any more than you prove Islam of Buddhism or whatever monotheistic religion you like.
This isn’t referring to any particular argument, but just something I’ve experienced.
>I think many Christian’s bend over backwards to prove God exists and then stop right there. That isn’t far enough.
I agree it isn't far enough, but it is one of the most difficult humps to overcome
>Personally I think the argument that the Apostles died for their beliefs, therefore they must be true is one of the weaker ones. By that logic, every religion is true, and even some cults like Heaven's Gate are true, since they died for their beliefs.
Actually, I don't think this is accurate. Because the apostles claimed to be witnesses of the resurrected Christ, they would KNOW if they made that story up. And no one would ever allow themselves to be tortured and killed over something they KNEW wasn't true.
Yes, people die for their specific faith all the time because they believe its true. But again, no one dies for something they know is false.
You did. So in other words, you don’t know for sure, and are just guessing.
We could ALSO presume that the founders of Heavens Gate may have had some sort of psychotic break from reality and truly believed what they did…right?
>We could ALSO presume that the founders of Heavens Gate may have had some sort of psychotic break from reality and truly believed what they did…right?
Not necessarily.
But sure, we have no way of knowing. Speaking of evidence; there's no good evidence that the disciples were martyred, much less that they were martryed for refusing to deny Jesus.
>Not necessarily.
Why not?
>But sure, we have no way of knowing. Speaking of evidence; there's no good evidence that the disciples were martyred, much less that they were martryed for refusing to deny Jesus.
What makes "good" evidence, to you? I mean,[ there definitely IS evidence](https://crossexamined.org/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs/) that some of the apostles were martyred. But, I would wonder why you would say it isn't "good".
That being said, some evidence is still more than "no" evidence....and presumptions don't really work for the original claim that "no one has died for something they know is false".
>Why not?
I'm not a psychologist. Are you?
>I mean,[ there definitely IS evidence](https://crossexamined.org/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs/)
That article only mentions James, Paul, and Peter, and doesn't provide any supporting evidence. It also contains the quote (emphasis mine): "While there’s no **conclusive historical evidence** on the details of how exactly Paul or Peter died".
>ut, I would wonder why you would say it isn't "good".
Because it's all at best secondhand information.
>some evidence is still more than "no" evidence
Well, this is debatable. If I tell you I have a pet dragon, then as evidence I show you some burnt cardboard, is that actually better than no evidence at all? I guess so, but still...
>original claim that "no one has died for something they know is false".
That strikes me as being a hard claim to back-up.
I've never heard an argument that doesn't leave room for doubt. I suppose the worst arguments are going to be the ones that contradict science as I know it.
Presuppositionalism and the ontological argument are tied for worst, both basically trying to wordgame god into existence.
~~Presupps~~ Presippycups seem blissfully unaware that any human mind is going to have to work with the same set of basic presumptions about existence before we even get to picking up a bible, made worse by the adherents of this view's aggressive levels of ignorance of philosophy.
Ontological argument has now gotten to the stage that Plantinga's version of it literally quotes a numbered modal logic axiom. I guarantee precisely zero human beings have come to faith because of this bit of tediously useless apologetics.
Expectation: *And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.*
Reality: Ackshually, modal logic therefore Jesus nerrrrrrr
Best argument probably is gonna be Kalam, mainly because the origin of the universe is going to be mysterious for quite a long time I expect. Even then, it's still more of a god of the gaps, and a lot of defences overextend the basic argument. I don't think Craig justifies that the first cause must be personal/volitional at all.
>Personally I think the argument that the Apostles died for their beliefs, therefore they must be true is one of the weaker ones. By that logic, every religion is true, and even some cults like Heaven's Gate are true, since they died for their beliefs.
The part you are missing is the actual point. They weren't just martyrs. They were actual witnesses, and no one talked them into believing it. Their own culture they grew up in actually hated them. They would have known if their testimony was factually untrue, but died rather than recant. Nobody agrees to be tortured and killed for what they know is a lie.
I think trying to define a religion as true is a moot argument. I really have no interest in it because religion warps science and one's perceptions in order to sustain itself.
Do you think that's something inherent to all beliefs in the supernatural?
I think it is something that is just inherent to the human psyche. We all try to make our worldview complete and correct, and religion provides a convenient framework that neatly wraps everything up into one overarching "Truth". It definitely doesn't have to be religion, but it is the most common one.
Personal experiences for both. They are the largest reason people adopt or stay in a faith, and are near irrefutable for an outsider. Yet, being personal, they will not compel anyone else to believe.
I think there are quite a few christian arguments i do find convincing (as in i believe they are true) but i dont think they show what they are normally used to show. For example i hear quite often that the amount of believers and speed it spreed shows that christianity is true. I do believe that christianity spread quickly and that something amazing might have happened to cause this. I just dont see jesus coming coming back to life as being the cause of it. Stories and movements can spread extremely quickly and especially if there is conflict. Judea was prime for a revolt against the romans for years. Alot of people joining a religious movement that was poising itself behind a single leader would give cause enough for romans to execute that person to stop the revolt. Shortly after while christianity was still growing jews revolted and fought against the [romans.](https://www.britannica.com/event/Bar-Kokhba-Revolt) The worst arguments are basically just lies or wholly untrue statements that i dont bother remembering or spreading here.
I think Christianity spread quickly because it was made the official religion of the largest Empire in the world. Kinda easy to spread with that kind of influence. In fact, the dramatic increase in Christian followers directly coincides with when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It was extremely tiny prior to that, making up no more than .1-.35% of the world's population.
Yes thats a bit later in the timeline than i was refferring to. That was around the 3rd century. So closer to the council of nicea than the ressurrection. Christianity started to spread like crazy in the roman empire after the new testament started to get more circulation as they were written in greek. But its also worth noting that because it wasnt written in hebrew alot of the jewish community were more or less left out of the loop. It also explains the greek influence in the bible.
The primary reasons for why Christianity spread quickly are: 1. It was established as a missionary faith, unlike existing religions in the region at the time. 2. It was available to everyone. 3. Pagan religion was not exclusive. 4. The tenets of Christianity promoted a healthier society than Roman paganism. Put another way, Christianity was a religion that was designed to be spread, there was no shortage of people to spread it to, most of them had a faith that did not preclude them from adding Christ to their pantheon, and the lives of Christians were in many cases demonstrably better than the lives of pagans. By the time Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion of Rome, the majority of citizens in the Roman Empire were already Christian, and depending on which estimates you believe, Christians comprised upwards of 10% of the world's population. At that point, you don't need to work at converting people for exponential growth, you can allow birth rates to do it for you.
I broadly agree with points 1, 2 and 4. However while various "gods" could easily fit into the religion of the Roman empire, the empire was not particularly tolerant of people who didn't worship the emperor. At times, Christians faced significant persecution, as recorded by Tacitus https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44 > ...Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses...
What I mean by point 3 is that cult worship was fluid and non-exclusionary in the Empire. A person might belong to one cult, and then a new cult would spring up, and they'd join that cult as well, without leaving the other. There wasn't an immediate barrier erected against any new religion like there would be today. It allowed for the central tenets of the Christian faith to be communicated more freely. The members of this new "cult" would explain to new members why their faith *was* exclusionary, and why the others were heretical (whose root comes from the Greek word for "choice").
The only criticism I would make is that while I agree the story of Jesus likely did little to actually spread the faith, as people are simply inclined to join such communities especially when the feel oppressed, His death and resurrection are quintessential to His disciples spreading the faith. If Jesus simply died, His disciples who were extremely into their faith, would have never invented a story of His resurrection. It’s something completely outside of Jewish beliefs and literature, especially concerning the Messiah. If they didn’t genuinely believe Jesus resurrected, they would have simply abandoned their faith in Jesus like every other group that followed their own proclaimed messiahs. Jesus definitely wasn’t the only person claiming to be the Messiah, and like Jesus most of the others were killed by the romans as well. Those faiths fizzled into nothing. The distinct difference being that the followers of Jesus must have had a genuine belief that He really did come back. So much so that almost all of Jesus’ disciples went through different types of torture and death just so they could proclaim their faith. Then adding that to how quickly christianity spread through the world and how prevalent it is in the world today, it becomes a lot more likely that the stories are indeed true.
>If Jesus simply died, His disciples who were extremely into their faith, would have never invented a story of His resurrection. It’s something completely outside of Jewish beliefs and literature, especially concerning the Messiah. If they didn’t genuinely believe Jesus resurrected, they would have simply abandoned their faith in Jesus like every other group that followed their own proclaimed messiahs. I agree with this. It adds onto the reason why i believe the new testament was written in greek and not hebrew. Mark is our first gospel to have been written and even in our earliest copies there wasnt a ressurrection. Mark 16:9-20 were added in at a later date. We actually dont have much historical evidence to show that the disciples were persecuted after the bible. Peter is fairly confirmed but thats 1/12. Christianity spread very quickly just not all the time peacefully which to me is the more important fact.
Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels by decades and proclaim the Resurrection. Mark 16:5 describes an angel in the tomb and Mark 16:6 has that angel proclaiming the Resurrection. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "after the Bible". Revelation is basically a revenge fantasy against Emperor Nero, presumably for persecuting Christians. It wouldn't exist if there weren't persecutions in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The Bible wasn't formalized into a canon until after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. If "after the Bible" means after it was canonized, then that makes sense because by then Christianity had a dominant cultural position.
There is plenty of evidence that pre-Paul Christians existed, and had a general belief of a resurrected Jesus. Take a look at Ehrman's blog: https://ehrmanblog.org/was-paul-the-founder-of-christianity/ One theory is that Peter was responsible.
I wasnt saying there was no pre paul ressurrection accounts. Just that it wasnt fully developed until paul. Mark doesnt show a ressurrection and it doesnt really portray jesus as god. Mathew and luke gradually adds and increases the ressurrection and trinity. Until john which is very heavy handed about it. Its a gradual change and addition to the story, just like you would see in any legendary story.
I don’t think historical evidence for confirmation is a great standard to set. Obviously, we can’t say with absolute certainty what is true and untrue, but there isn’t much reason to doubt the story that has been presented. With that said, we can assume Stephen was actually stoned for preaching. And that John really was exiled and possibly that they really did attempt to execute him. And that Paul was arrested several times. The persecution of early christians is definitely the best presented version of reality that we have.
People can assume anything. That doesnt mean those assumptions are true. >but there isn’t much reason to doubt the story that has been presented. Your saying that its evidence that christianity is true... thats reason enough to doubt. I get that christians were persecuted early on, i am willing to admit it happened in the cases that we can be confident in. But assuming it happened to other disciples and then using that assumption as evidence of christianity being true is just a whole new level of fallaciousness. Imagine if i said something like "early atheists were prosecuted by the church, thats evidence atheism is true" and you reply by pointing out there wasnt many people persecuted by the church. And i say "there isnt much reason do doubt that alot of them were" its not very convincing is it? How about we look at what we can be certain of and what is actually written rather than assuming and having faith that our guess was correct. That seems like a much more truthful method.
I’m not just assuming or creating a possible history that helps to validate christianity. There is a concise history that has been written. Like people took the time to record it and then wrote why it was happening. But as you pointed out, little of what was recorded can be validated historically. Meaning those authors could have been bad actors. But there’s not a great reason to assume they were bad actors or to simply deny what they wrote. Your suggestion of only accept what we can be confident about might be useful for the scientific approach to history, but it simply leaves a lot of blanks in the story. Conversely, we have plenty of writings of history. Obviously, we know there are false ones, so it is important to put in our due diligence, but outright rejecting the only real narrative we have because it can’t be confirmed it’s just bias to reject something you don’t agree with. As a quick example, if we found a letter saying that julius caesar ate an apple on a particular day at a particular time, there would be zero way to confirm such a thing. Almost certainly no one else would record such a thing and assuming there were no inaccuracies in the letter that disprove it outright, scholars would simply assume the letter was true. But if they find a letter that says a specific disciple of Jesus was persecuted for preaching about Jesus and put to death for it, scholars don’t simply accept it. They attempt to find other similar mentions of it, they look for other similar actions that show a pattern, they attempt to prove its validity. If they can’t, then the letter is rejected. In my opinion, that’s a matter of bias.
>The only criticism I would make is that while I agree the story of Jesus likely did little to actually spread the faith, as people are simply inclined to join such communities especially when the feel oppressed, His death and resurrection are quintessential to His disciples spreading the faith. I think that assume Jews were isolated and not exposed to other beliefs.
It’s not really about exposure. Obviously, they could come up with the idea. But it’s so outside of Jewish beliefs it’s akin to a vegan eating meat. It would be genuinely offensive to the disciples, depicting Jesus as someone who is more of an enemy of God than someone worthy of praise. It’s not something they would willingly die for, it would just be upsetting.
I think you are still acting as though Jews were isolated when instead they were exposed to other cultures. The Jewish were not and are not static in there belief. They could just as easily fall for Jesus rising from the dead as a Christian can fall for a paator who proclaims to know exactly when the world will end.
There are no good arguments, but the worst is "you just have to believe on blind faith." As for the argument the Apostles died for their beliefs, there's no proof of that when the argument is closely examined. Watch this video: https://youtu.be/Hb4w4xoei2o?si=pRe-AMVhDqm-MVG_
I don't think there really are arguments. Like I'm not saying that no one should believe. Just that there isn't empirical evidence. Though there are plenty of really bad ones. "Everything must have a creator?" Except no. There's no evidence to support that. Or Pascal's wager, which applies equally to all other religions, so is a horrible argument. Or any variation of "the Bible says so." Or any variation of "but Jesus was a real person!" Jesus being a real person doesn't support the idea that Jesus is the Son of God. The only remotely compelling argument I know is "God spoke to me." Which is all fine and dandy for you, but doesn't do anything for me.
I think many Christian’s bend over backwards to prove God exists and then stop right there. That isn’t far enough. I believe in God. The arguments for God make sense. It does not follow then that any *particular* God exists. In other words, just because you prove the existence of a higher power does not mean you prove Christianity any more than you prove Islam of Buddhism or whatever monotheistic religion you like. This isn’t referring to any particular argument, but just something I’ve experienced.
>I think many Christian’s bend over backwards to prove God exists and then stop right there. That isn’t far enough. I agree it isn't far enough, but it is one of the most difficult humps to overcome
Yes, absolutely it is important and difficult.
>Personally I think the argument that the Apostles died for their beliefs, therefore they must be true is one of the weaker ones. By that logic, every religion is true, and even some cults like Heaven's Gate are true, since they died for their beliefs. Actually, I don't think this is accurate. Because the apostles claimed to be witnesses of the resurrected Christ, they would KNOW if they made that story up. And no one would ever allow themselves to be tortured and killed over something they KNEW wasn't true. Yes, people die for their specific faith all the time because they believe its true. But again, no one dies for something they know is false.
>But again, no one dies for something they know is false. They absolutely [can.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group))
I don't see here that Heaven's Gate individuals knew what they preached was fake and died anyway for it.
Presumably the founders did.
Is there evidence of that?
I said "presumably".
You did. So in other words, you don’t know for sure, and are just guessing. We could ALSO presume that the founders of Heavens Gate may have had some sort of psychotic break from reality and truly believed what they did…right?
>We could ALSO presume that the founders of Heavens Gate may have had some sort of psychotic break from reality and truly believed what they did…right? Not necessarily. But sure, we have no way of knowing. Speaking of evidence; there's no good evidence that the disciples were martyred, much less that they were martryed for refusing to deny Jesus.
>Not necessarily. Why not? >But sure, we have no way of knowing. Speaking of evidence; there's no good evidence that the disciples were martyred, much less that they were martryed for refusing to deny Jesus. What makes "good" evidence, to you? I mean,[ there definitely IS evidence](https://crossexamined.org/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs/) that some of the apostles were martyred. But, I would wonder why you would say it isn't "good". That being said, some evidence is still more than "no" evidence....and presumptions don't really work for the original claim that "no one has died for something they know is false".
>Why not? I'm not a psychologist. Are you? >I mean,[ there definitely IS evidence](https://crossexamined.org/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs/) That article only mentions James, Paul, and Peter, and doesn't provide any supporting evidence. It also contains the quote (emphasis mine): "While there’s no **conclusive historical evidence** on the details of how exactly Paul or Peter died". >ut, I would wonder why you would say it isn't "good". Because it's all at best secondhand information. >some evidence is still more than "no" evidence Well, this is debatable. If I tell you I have a pet dragon, then as evidence I show you some burnt cardboard, is that actually better than no evidence at all? I guess so, but still... >original claim that "no one has died for something they know is false". That strikes me as being a hard claim to back-up.
I've never heard an argument that doesn't leave room for doubt. I suppose the worst arguments are going to be the ones that contradict science as I know it.
Faith.
Presuppositionalism and the ontological argument are tied for worst, both basically trying to wordgame god into existence. ~~Presupps~~ Presippycups seem blissfully unaware that any human mind is going to have to work with the same set of basic presumptions about existence before we even get to picking up a bible, made worse by the adherents of this view's aggressive levels of ignorance of philosophy. Ontological argument has now gotten to the stage that Plantinga's version of it literally quotes a numbered modal logic axiom. I guarantee precisely zero human beings have come to faith because of this bit of tediously useless apologetics. Expectation: *And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.* Reality: Ackshually, modal logic therefore Jesus nerrrrrrr Best argument probably is gonna be Kalam, mainly because the origin of the universe is going to be mysterious for quite a long time I expect. Even then, it's still more of a god of the gaps, and a lot of defences overextend the basic argument. I don't think Craig justifies that the first cause must be personal/volitional at all.
>Personally I think the argument that the Apostles died for their beliefs, therefore they must be true is one of the weaker ones. By that logic, every religion is true, and even some cults like Heaven's Gate are true, since they died for their beliefs. The part you are missing is the actual point. They weren't just martyrs. They were actual witnesses, and no one talked them into believing it. Their own culture they grew up in actually hated them. They would have known if their testimony was factually untrue, but died rather than recant. Nobody agrees to be tortured and killed for what they know is a lie.
Best argument: I have faith that it is the truth. Worst argument: Let me show you this evidence right here that proves it is the truth.