5 ms·
Well - I myself think historical methods are perfectly reasonable for establishing historical facts - and the credibility of Christianity is primarily a questio
by Dove 3y ago
Well - I myself think historical methods are perfectly reasonable for establishing historical facts - and the credibility of Christianity is primarily a question of historical fact. And Keener's books were what convinced me that miracles definitely still happen, a case I don't remember specifically because it's been a minute, but which I do remember being both meticulous and overwhelming.
But I am curious, if you are willing to condescend a little further - if historical evidence is out as an entire category (which seems already unreasonable to me, but let's go with it), what sort of "better" evidence are you looking for? I mean, it sounds like this is not a new argument to you, so I expect you'll know what I mean when I say, "I think the astrophysics stuff is really good." I mean, it's so insanely good that it makes people who want to reject God say insane-sounding things about unbelievable numbers of unverifiable parallel universes. At which point I think just believing in God is way simpler. Or, I think the origin of life stuff is really good - good enough to convert Anthony Flew and make Nobel Laureates start talking about panspermia. I have some personal stories that have historically been good enough to require telepathic space aliens as an alternative explanation, in discussions like this.
Not good enough for you? I imagine you're familiar and I should skip it?
That really does beg the question - what evidence would be good enough for you?
- angoragoats 3y agoSigh, I'll bite, one more time. > I mean, it sounds like this is not a new argument to you, so I expect you'll know what I mean when I say, "I think the astrophysics stuff is really good." You are correct, and my response is the same one I give whenever a theist brings up astrophysics as an argument for god: you probably don't understand "the astrophysics stuff" as well as you think you do. Depending on what, specifically, you mean by "the astrophysics stuff", it's likely that you have misconceptions about a) what the big bang theory is, the period of time covered by it, and related implications, or b) the second law of thermodynamics, or c) quantum mechanics, or some combination of the above. > That really does beg the question - what evidence would be good enough for you? I don't know, but if a god exists, she certainly does, and the fact that she hasn't shown it to me is evidence that either she does not exist or that she does not want me to know she exists. Either way, the only rational position for me to take is that I do not accept the claim that the christian god exists, until warranted by evidence. I have a more questions to ask you based on your responses, which I've yet to receive clear, succinct answers to from any theist, but I think I'll stop here since it's clear I won't get them. Bye.