Are You 100% Sure God Exists?

I talked with someone this week who said he was 100% sure God existed. I found that to be an interesting statement. 100% sure. What does anyone think he meant by that? What other beliefs do Christians have that are 100% sure? Can a Christian admit he or she is only, say, 75% sure God exists? Why/Why not? Is a Christian more sure God exists than other things that are obvious? Which kinds of things? How does what you believe as a Christian compare with the other things you believe? Why would anyone feel the need to claim he is 100% sure that God exists?

44 comments:

Dave Barrett said...

Presumably Mother Terresa, at least in her private correspondence where she admitted that she felt a total absence of God, would NOT say that she was 100% sure that God exists. I suppose saying that you are 100% sure is another way of saying that you, unlike some Christians, never have had any "dark nights of the soul" when you have doubted God's existence.

Vinny said...

In order to be a biblical literalist, one must have the capacity to be 100% sure that reality is whatever one needs it to be in order to support one's faith.

Christian fundamentalists are often absolutely sure of many statements for which there is no evidence:

"All homosexuals can choose to become heterosexual."

"More and more scientists are questioning the theory of evolution.

"The evidence is overwhelming that the New Testament accounts are accurate historical records of Jesus's life."

These things have to be true so they must be. I have often thought that this tendency explains the sincerity of President Bush's claims that we are succeeding in Iraq. God told him to go to war there, so the United States must be winning.

Anonymous said...

Would Christians claim to be more sure that God (the Christian God) exists than they are that they exist? Hardly. Christians ought to consider the actual amount of confidence they have in their faith here. It might help them become more realistic in recognizing that what they have is hope, not certainty. This might allow them to be more honest with their doubts, rather than coming up with pat answers for every question.

This matters a lot. Not only will it help with what I just said above, but since Christians are sacrificing their whole lives for a set of beliefs, it should caution them in doing so.

Christian, your belief calls for 100% commitment. But if you are honest with your doubts you cannot claim to be 100% certain (not in the same way you know you exist). And if you cannot be 100% certain, you cannot be expected to be 100% committed. God should know this, and yet he expects 100% commitment from you.

That's expecting way too much for an omniscient God who should know you better than that, right?

Unknown said...

Why would anyone feel the need to claim he is 100% sure that God exists? why must a group of former Christian start a blog to "debunk" Christianity? I suppose this similar type of question is fair game, n'est pas?

Jason said...

lol What kind of a topic is this? The dude said, "100% sure". Who cares what he meant! Why not just ask him yourself?

Anonymous said...

Well, I couldn't find anywhere to contact the person running this site, so I thought I would just leave my thought as a comment on the most recent post.

Here goes:

I appreciate your comment policy! I have been roaming the internet and am saddened by the anger and hatred found in comments on just about any topic. And that is usually from both sides. I find a lot of comments of the variety "so-and-so is an idiot."

I agree with you when you discourage that kind of "discussion." People who disagree with each other, even if strongly, can still treat each other well.

I am a follower and believer in Jesus. I have had "dark night of the soul" seasons in my life. But I still believe in Him and hope in Him. As mentioned in previous posts, I seem no longer able to doubt His existence or His deity, even when discouraged in my faith. Isn't that wild? Who would have ever thought I would be able to say that with such joy and confidence?

:-)

ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com

Dillie-O said...

I'm not sure you have to be 100% certain to be 100% committed. Sometimes being 100% certain locks you to a point where you aren't willing to question these things.

It may be a poor analogy, but I like to think of chairs, probably since I spend all day in my comfy green corduroy chair programming. If I needed to be 100% certain that a chair worked, then every meeting I went to I'd spend the first 5 minutes analyzing the structure, shaking the chair for stability, and a plethora of stuff. Alas I don't. I see a chair, and recalling my memory of "chairness" I feel confident that this thing will support my rump and I plop on down. There is a chance that that chair in front of me is a movie prop chair that will crumble the second I sit on it, but previous experience and initial inspection shows me that a chair will support me, so I sit in it.

So am I 100% certain that the God of the Bible exists? No, and I can say that without reservation. But I have my experience, my trials, my thinking, and my continued thinking that leads me to believe that is is most reasonably so that the God of the Bible does exist and I proceed as such.

Vinny said...

When a Bible believing Christian claims to be 100% sure of something, it is an abdication of reason. He or she is making the choice that Billy Graham made regarding intellectual challenges to his beliefs: "I found that if I say 'The Bible says' and 'God says,' I get results. I have decided I'm not going to wrestle with these questions any longer."

Unknown said...

No one can be 100% sure of anything. Are you 100% sure God doesn't exist? Maybe you're the one with a closed mind. Most atheists resist God and Christianity becuase if God does exist (which he does), that means they would have to submit to him.

Spirula said...

No one can be 100% sure of anything.

Are you 100% sure of that?
(Sorry folks, couldn't resist.)

Most Christians resist Allah and Islam because if Allah does exist (which he does), that means they would have to submit to him.

See how easy that is?

I could make up this kind of stuff all day too.

And I'm 100% sure about that.

Unknown said...

I'm quite sure many, if not most, Christians (although different confessions are definitely not immune) need to affirm their supposed certainty in order to convince themselves more than anyone else. Of course that's not to say that only theists are subject to this, or that it is intrinsic only of metaphysical faith. It is simply a self-defence against anything which might instil doubt in their mind. Some people simply cannot stand doubt, it is unbearable to them. So they find refuge in dogma.

D. A. N. said...

15 years ago not so sure..today I am 100% sure. I was promissed in John 14:21 and it was true.

Anonymous said...

Dillie-o said...Sometimes being 100% certain locks you to a point where you aren't willing to question these things.

Exactly! This is my point. Thanks. The Christian who says he is 100% sure his God exists is not being reasonable with the evidence.

Dillie-o said...I'm not sure you have to be 100% certain to be 100% committed.

This is a good point, one which on second thought seems reasonable outside the context I'm referring to. I was not thinking about chairs when I said it. I was thinking about the kind of commitment God demands from Christians with regard to refraining from sin. I maintain that unless a Christian is 100% sure that their God exists and wants them to refrain from committing sin that they will never completely obey 100%.

Here's a better analogy for what I am getting at: If Christians believed that by looking at porn on the net they would go to hell then they simply wouldn't do it. If Adam & Eve knew for sure that if they sinned they would bring on this world the suffering that we experience, they wouldn't have sinned. This is just obvious. Just think about it for a minute. The whole reason people disobey is because they are not 100 sure of that which they claim to believe. I further maintain that Christians do not believe unbelievers are going to hell either, for if they truly believed this their whole lives would change and evangelism would be a daily preoccupation with them.

And as far as Leon's question goes, I am as just as sure the Christian God does not exist as he is that Zeus, or Allah, or Janus doesn't exist. But when it comes to whether not some kind of supreme Being exists, then I am about 60% sure such a Being does not exist.

Dillie-O said...

I think in theory you are correct John, if we truly believe that we're going to hell, then we wouldn't sin. The problem is that we still have the desires of the flesh which says "to hell with tomorrow, I want it now!" (to insert a bad double pun)

There have been times in my life as Christian that I have given over to sin, fully aware of the consequences, but I didn't care because I wanted to enjoy the moment.

Does that mean I had a moment of doubt? I don't think so. I think its the struggle of the mind and the will that happens in our beings.

We have some "scared straight" ads on our local TV about not doing crystal meth. It shows the kid getting ready to light up when a "future self" completely messed up and horrible tells them it isn't worth it.

I'm sure there are people out there that do crytal meth anyway, fully aware of the consequences. Does that mean for a moment that they don't believe they'll get addicted and ruin their life, or that they prefer that moment of high and will deal with things later?

Bill said...

"There have been times in my life as Christian that I have given over to sin, fully aware of the consequences, but I didn't care because I wanted to enjoy the moment."

One of the things that has always bothered me is how people like Abraham, Moses, and Peter could supposedly come face-to-face with the awesome power of God and STILL deliberately sin against him. Doesn't that whole scenario ring just a little bit hollow to you? Is the sin tendency really THAT strong that it acts like a virus, pulling us to think, say, and do things against our will? If so, then God is not all powerful in saving his people from it. Nor should anyone be held responsible for their sinful thoughts and actions, if they are that all-fired irresistible. If they aren't and it is a deliberate choice--who in their right mind would make such a choice knowing what Moses, Abraham, and Peter knew about God?!?

I submit to you that if you or I really heard the voice of God, saw Him engrave the 10 commandments, or witnessed him heal the sick and raise the dead we would absolutely NOT lie about our wife being our sister, break the tablets into smithereens, or swear that we do not know Jesus! To do so would be suicide. But that is exactly what the Biblical characters end up doing in all these stories--flipping off a supposedly terrifying and omnipotent God. Like I said, the whole thing has a suspicious, hollow ring to it. I very highly doubt these stories are credible.

Danny Schade said...

You only need to suppose the possibility of the Cartesian demon.
"I will suppose... some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgement." René Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy: First Meditation

That seems to show there cannot be 100% certainty of anything.

Bloviator said...

John, I think it all comes down to a mental supposition. I suppose my car will start every morning, and if asked, I would likely say I am sure it will start. However, if someone throws out some stats to me about temperature and its effect on battery life, etc., I might have a moment of doubt and drop off to 80% belief in my car starting. I think most xtians are like this with God (and probably why sites like this anger them so).

To be human is to doubt. Paul himself stated that he had hope in the resurrection, not 100% belief. If pressed, I am sure he would have stated it was 100% sure, but how would he then explain his "if the resurrection is false, our faith is in vain" statement?

Now, to ask xtians to openly agree that they have doubts is to ask them to be willing to throw over their (most?)-cherished beliefs. Try that with an obsessive lottery player and see how far you get.

Do you see the hook in the biblical stories that require 100% belief? It is the great 'out clause', the ultimate excuse system to justify belief in the face of the disbelief of others (and relates totally to our present TRUE CHRISTIAN paradigm). Actually the more I think of it, the more like a lottery the whole system is. "You gotta play to win!" If you don't buy that ticket, you most certainly won't get the $300mil payout, will you? If you don't stick with the faith to the end, you will miss the bus to heaven. What's the difference? Promise of the big payoff in the end in both cases, and even though I understand the statistical probabilities involved in lottery play, I find that I still buy the ticket. In that brief moment, I am sure I will win. Further, if you talk to the winners (or in the case of faith, to people like thirstyjon), the personal stories leave little room for doubt.

Like you I am not 100% certain a supreme being doesn't exist, but evidence is scant, and I am as close to 100% certain as I can be (let's call it 90%) that the Abrahamic god is non-existent.

Dillie-O said...

I don't think the stories ring hollow. If anything, they ring true to the human condition. Look at the disciples who spent years with Jesus, saw him perform miracles, heard his lessons of profound truth, and at the first moment of capture, they all scatter, fearful for their own safety.

Look at the Israelites in Exodus. Miracle after miracle is performed by Moses on behalf of God and as soon as they cross the Red Sea, their griping about their needs and how God has abandoned them.

Look at today's culture. The culture is by far a "me, me me" culture, the cliche "do what feels good", "I'm entitled to X,Y,Z", "as long as you're not harming others do whatever you want" type society. No matter how many times we see the "random acts of kindness" or "pass it on" or other type lessons of virtue (and I think we can all agree that virtue is something to strive for), we get dragged back down into our selfish desires.

And ultimately that's the biggest tragedy. God can reveal himself in his splendor, something that should utterly blow my mind, and I will turn around 3 minutes later and "flip him off" (as somebody mentioned) by doing a selfish deed.

It doesn't negate God's existence in my mind. It shows that He knew from the get go the condition of man and was working out a plan for it.

Bloviator said...

dillie-o, although I agree with you that many, many bible stories ring true to the human condition, I obviously disagree with you regarding the meaning of such. To you, it is evidence of god and his understanding of the weakness of the human condition. To me (though, like you, I also do not see it as a negation of a god/gods) it is a fascinating exposition of the human condition as seen by the ancients. For that alone, I stand in disagreement with other atheists who feel the bible is just so much trash. It is an extremely valuable anthropological document which gives great insight into how we, as humans, try to understand the universe and our place in it. So you see, a certain change in our respective suppositions and we get variant readings of the same material. That, to me, is what makes us truly human, and one of the reasons I could not accept a 'one size fits all' theology. As individuals, we are not, nor have we ever been, the same in our world-view.

BTW, I am in no way blind to the folly of seeing life as completely devoid of meaning and construct, and often I find myself (as the parent of small children) decrying the state of our society and the seemingly endless stream of narcissism. I merely posit that we, as humans who are capable of modifying our environment, owe it to ourselves to create our own meaning and order in what might otherwise be seen as a cruel and indifferent universe. In truth, I feel that is why we invented gods and theology in addition to our whole modern, post hunter-gatherer, social structure. Just because I hold no god belief is no reason for me to throw my hands up and say I have no moral code.

D. A. N. said...

Debunk this one:

This is evidence and logic cannot refute it,

THE PROOF

Shygetz said...

Dan,

No evidence, just assertions based on ignorance.

The Big Bang model states that time was at a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang; therefore, time itself is not infinite, but rather began 14 billion years ago. So, his temporal Zeno's paradox is beside the point.

His other complaints are better answered here.

One of the things that irks me most about these kinds of "arguments" is the notion that we scientists are too stupid to ever have thought of it before. Give us some credit; scientists are more critical of each other than the public ever is, reagardless of their biases. No big idea ever becomes well accepted until it has been beaten to death by the sharpest, most educated minds the field has to offer, so at least give us some credit here.

Bill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D. A. N. said...

Shygetz,

You said "The Big Bang model states that time was at a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang; therefore, time itself is not infinite,"

I agree

You said: "No big idea ever becomes well accepted until it has been beaten to death by the sharpest, most educated minds the field has to offer, so at least give us some credit here.."

You assume the general public, such as myself, have no clue or are less educated or inquisitive then you?

You add: "Give us some credit;" I can't you all have lied to us for our entire lives. Your so called "sharpest minds" are lying to themselves and everyone else. There are holes in your Big Bang theory. There is NO evidence at all for Evolution (macro) and scientists insists they are all right in there theories which they are not. 140 years ago they used to bleed people to cure them and the Bible in Leviticus 17:11 says that blood is life, that was over 2800 years ago.

Your religion of naturalism is so flawed. Lets start with Big Bang and how come no scientist in the world can answer the logical questions posed. You want to force feed us illogical theories. You have the nerve to say "No evidence, just assertions based on ignorance."

Lets see of this is true for big bang theory

big bang problem #1: Missing antimatter problem. (baryon number) How much in the universe, ZERO. One exception is not an answer either.

big bang problem #2: Monopoles problem. Batteries have +/- and at high temperatures greater then the core of a star can create singular poles and the big bang started at infinite temperature and that would be hot enough. Guess how many we find ZERO.   

big bang problem #3: Singularity point problem. The Big Bang DOES NOT even explain the origin of the universe. How did that singular point get there?

big bang problem #4:Known physics breaks down in this situation. General relativity (powerful gravitational fields) and quantum mechanics (very small situation) exists separately but there is NO physics currently that can explain both situations at the same time which is what the Big Bang requires. Known physics cannot describe that (big bang) situation so big banger's take it on BLIND FAITH that if such physics is ever discovered that it would even allow for the theory of the big bang.

big bang problem #5: Population 3 stars there should be these type of first stars everywhere all over the universe. Any guess to how many are out there...ZERO! All stars have trace amounts of the heaver elements.

Now I will admit I had help (like Dr. Jason Lisle) for these points but science cannot explain there theories they try to teach the kids. Not mine because we are homeschooling our kids. These are things with no evidence, just assertions based on ignorance.

We don't need a PHD to smell a rotting fish now do we.

It all starts with a scientist's presupposition and that is why most are mislead into wrong assertions.

Maybe you should start at true origin instead.

Bill said...

Dillie-o, perhaps the Biblical stories of people's encounters with God are less factual history and more made-up stories to make a moral point. I still don't see it likely that anyone having an awesome encounter with the terrible Yaweh would soon forget it! Nor is it likely that such a person would go on to engage in deliberate, premeditated sin! Yet Abraham, Issac, Moses, David, etc, DID. Therefore, it is unlikely that they actually encountered God and the Biblical stories are, as you seemed to point out, simply commentaries on human nature or social conventions.

I revised my comments so I could insert this one statement: If the stories about the patriarchs and disciples waffling after an encounter with God are true, then it must tell us that they were, in fact, NOT 100% SURE about God's existence. Either that or they regarded him as one god among many--something superior to them, perhaps, but unworthy of absolute worship and trust.

You said, "God can reveal himself in his splendor, something that should utterly blow my mind, and I will turn around 3 minutes later and "flip him off" (as somebody mentioned) by doing a selfish deed." If that's the case, then God has nothing to loose by giving us more evidence of his existence, does he? Nothing at all. In fact, I think if God is likely to win over many, heart-felt converts. Most of us appreciate honesty, rather than symbols, parables, and game-playing.

Ben said...

" don't think the stories ring hollow. If anything, they ring true to the human condition. Look at the disciples who spent years with Jesus, saw him perform miracles, heard his lessons of profound truth, and at the first moment of capture, they all scatter, fearful for their own safety."

Wait. To bolster the argument that those other Bible stories are realistic, you cite other Bible stories?

But THOSE other stories are no more realistic than the first ones.

(I'm not the other Ben who posted earlier)

Jason said...

"The Christian who says he is 100% sure his God exists is not being reasonable with the evidence."

And an atheist who says he is 100% sure God doesn't exist isn't being reasonable with the lack of evidence. :)

Bill said...

I'm not bolstering anything, other than a suspicion I have that the Biblical stories are made up. The patriarchs and disciples were either extremely dumb when they saw God's terrifying presence and miracles or they didn't see them at all. The stories themselves are weak. Whatever value there might be to them morally, they are so obviously made-up stories. You can't see that, intuitively?

akakiwibear said...

I always thought that being 100% certain of anything was a barrier to learning and understanding. That would be true for theist and atheist alike.

For example spirula in his comment (of which he is 100%) does not seem to know that the Abrahamic religions share the same God.

If any of us where to be 100% certain that God did/not exist we would have had ABSOLUTE proof. The very fact that we are discussing the question means that level of proof does not exist.

Can I be a theist without being 100% certain? Just as easily as you can be an atheist... well except I think an open mined evaluation all the evidence comes down on the side of theism - but then you say atheism, guess we both need faith in our reasoning.

D. A. N. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D. A. N. said...

The difference is experience with God (me) vs non experience (atheists).

A mother tells a child not to touch that hot Iron and the kid listens and believes his Mom. As soon as the Mom leaves the room the child touches the Hot Iron and gets burned. He just went from a belief the Iron 'was' hot to an experience that the Iron 'is' hot with 100% assurance. No one can come and tell him otherwise because his experience tells him different. He is 100% certain the Iron is hot and he has the burn to prove it.

Well I have felt the Hot Iron of God's hand on me and cannot be persuaded otherwise because I have an experience that removed ALL doubt, I am 100% certain there is a God.

On the flip an atheist cannot say they have 100% certainty based on a non experience, it is based on a belief still. They have a belief based on lack of said experience, but they remain uncertain (lack of assurance).

zilch said...

Being 100% sure about something is a funny concept- what if you're proven wrong? Do you explode? I would hesitate to quantify sureness about things which are not repeatable and must be either right or wrong, such as the existence of God (leaving aside quibbles such as the possible existence of more than one God, etc.).

For instance, it makes sense to say that I'm 50% sure that a coin toss will result in heads, or that I'm 95% sure my breakfast milk will not be sour- these are statistical percentages for repeatable outcomes. But I'm not sure it makes sense to put numbers on one-shot phenomena. I can say, for instance, that I'm pretty sure there is no Loch Ness monster, and that I'm quite sure that the stars are great balls of burning gas, and that I'm not a brain in a vat, but what could it mean for me to put numbers to these feelings of certainty?

The same goes for the existence of God: I'm pretty sure God does not exist, with about the same degree of certainty that I have for the non-existence of unicorns and diminutive underwear drawer trolls. But putting a number on it wouldn't quantify anything meaningfully.

Dan- shygetz already pointed out the problems with this "proof of God's existence". I'll just add that this is a typical example of the "proof from ignorance", which is basically this:

"Here's something I (or we, or science) don't understand. The only possible explanation, therefore, is magic".

Brigs said...

Dan Marvin?

Is this the same obnoxious troll that used to post on the atheist experience blog?

D. A. N. said...

rdzilch said "I'm pretty sure God does not exist, with about the same degree of certainty that I have for the non-existence of unicorns and diminutive underwear drawer trolls."

OK now we are getting somewhere, so what if you were to experience God? Would you then be sure, would doubt be removed? (assuming you were sober and sane)

So where would you go from there If everyone on earth told you there were no God and you had seen Him the opinions of other would be irrelevant. You would be 100% certain correct? are you 100% certain that the cloths you have on are yours? You have the experience of going into your closet and "putting on" said cloths. But are you sure what you experienced was your clothing? Of course you can confidently say yes you are 100%certain those are your cloths even if I told you you were crazy, that something else could have been in your closet, that you don't have proof that is your shirt.

What if you experienced God would all your doubt be removed? John14:21

zilch said...

Dan- as I said, I don't see any sense in assigning percentages of certainty to one-off phenomena. So I can't imagine ever saying that I'm 100% sure God exists, or doesn't exist.

And as for what I would feel if I experienced God, that's impossible to say. I suppose it would depend on how I experienced him: a voice in my head just as I was falling asleep would not make me very sure; a giant head in the sky talking to me in broad daylight would be somewhat more impressive. However, nothing of the sort has happened so far, and I don't see any reason to believe that it's likely to happen.

But I'm open to whatever the world offers me. Unfortunately for literal belief in the Bible, however, I already know too much science, so I'm pretty well inoculated.

Spirula said...

example spirula in his comment (of which he is 100%) does not seem to know that the Abrahamic religions share the same God.

I'm almost 100% sure akakiwibear doesn't recognize snark when he reads it.

As a matter of fact, as an ex-christian, I'm very familiar with the origins of the three stooges of Abraham and their god.

But if you feel you share the same god as your Islamic brethern, I'm sure you'd have a wonderful time sitting around with them and conversing with them about your shared belief in the Triune God and the divinity of Jesus.

I'm pretty sure Muslims consider your god and religion false, as you do theirs. That would hardly qualify, in my estimation, as a "shared" god.

D. A. N. said...

Alexis was that a hic-up or a burp?

Or the same old Ad hominem from that other website

D. A. N. said...

what a coincidence (or devine), I just read this in some papers that I am studying about presupposition. It sure relates to this subject:

There are, of course, several kinds of certainty which pertain to beliefs: (1) psychological certainty, the absence of doubt; (2) logical certainty, the validity of an argument; (3) objective certainty, the soundness of an argument (true premises and valid logic). Since Christian argumentation is an application of the Word of God, it is, when done right, always certain in the second and third senses. But does it also warrant psychological certainty?

Yes: the evidence, evaluated in the light of a Christian epistemology, warrants psychological certainty, because its ultimate appeal is to the authoritative Word of God. We ought to be certain of the Word of God; indeed, the Word is our very criterion of certainty. We ought to regard it as more certain than anything else we know. For example: ultimately, the strongest evidence for the resurrection is that Scripture teaches it!

Bill said...

That, my friend, is a classic example of circular reasoning!!! Let's put it in another context: ultimately, the strongest evidence that we are going to be gods of our own planet is that the book of Mormon teaches it. Just because a book claims to be the word of God does not make it so, nor is it the word of God simply because you presuppose it to be so. Another problem is, which account of the resurrection is the right one? Your Biblical "witnesses" can't even agree on that!

D. A. N. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D. A. N. said...

Joseph wrote: "Just because a book claims to be the word of God does not make it so,"

The Bible has some 300 prophecies that came true that are provable by history. 135 prophecies came true in Daniel alone. Read Isaiah 53 1-12 and you will see that it was written about Jesus and was written almost 700 years before Christ was even born. Not the Koran or any other book in the world can prophecy even once like the Bible did 300 times and that is evidence that it was written by God.

You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts. Do you know how many manuscripts of antiquity about Jesus? Any guess?

The New Testament we have either in fragments or partials within 25 years, 40 years of events we have 5,400 partials or complete manuscripts in Greek (the original language) and 19,000 other languages. You want a reliable book and you believe Julius Caesar existed? You can believe that Jesus existed and he did exactly what it says in the Bible because you have eye witness accounts that were willing to die for it.

Joseph wrote "Another problem is, which account of the resurrection is the right one? "

Actually it proves such an event happened. It would be like the both of us watching fireworks where you describe the different colors that you saw and I would describe the different shapes that I saw yet it was the same event, we just use different methods to describe said event.

Bloviator said...

God Almighty!! (Pun intended). Reading that last post by Dan is like looking into a barf bag of christian apologetics -- and weak stuff at that. Geez, you'd think at least an original thought would come to mind somewhere along the line. One thing I am sure of and that is there are many very intelligent christians -- after all, John, Lee, Prup, Former Fundy, et. al. were all christians once -- someone, please stop channeling Lee Strobel and give us some new meat to digest!

Vinny said...

I remember how disappointed I was when I read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell thirty years ago. As a senior in high school, I accepted Jesus as my personal savior because the gospel seemed to promise the meaning I was looking for in my life. Considering myself a rational person, I wanted to know the factual basis for my faith.

Even as a Bible believer, it was obvious to me that the argument based on prophecies fulfilled was weak. Knowing absolutely nothing about Biblical criticism, I knew that you could not prove the historical accuracy of the Bible by assuming the historical accuracy of the Bible.

What saddened me most was realizing that McDowell's purpose was not to provide evidence to persuade the skeptic who would think about the arguments critically, but to quiet the doubts of believers who wouldn't.

zilch said...

Dan- following your line of reasoning about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies in the Bible, I could claim that Sybil Trelawney was sent by God, because she prophesied correctly that Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort would meet and only one would survive. What's the difference? The Bible is also a work of fiction (with some real history thrown in, to be sure), and the later chapters "magically" fulfill predictions of earlier chapters. Nothing too mysterious here.

Shygetz said...

"Read Isaiah 53 1-12 and you will see that it was written about Jesus and was written almost 700 years before Christ was even born.

The Jews strongly disagree with you. They point out that the Messiah is supposed to:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease.(Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. (Zechariah 14:9).

But you count the hits and discount the misses. Hmmm...

"Actually it proves such an event happened. It would be like the both of us watching fireworks where you describe the different colors that you saw and I would describe the different shapes that I saw yet it was the same event, we just use different methods to describe said event."

But the Bible isn't merely eyewitness testimony; it is "God-breathed". As such, it is not prone to errors like fallible mortal eyewitness testimony. And yet, the accounts differ in ways both major and minor, and in ways that are mutually exclusive.

You can't have it both ways; the Bible can't be both infallible (and therefore reliable), and naturally fallible (and therefore authentic). Which one is it?