Found this post “Why Order, Fine-Tuning, and Consciousness Point to Theism Over Atheism” a typical ignorant set of claims by a Christian. The fine-tuning argument always fails, since it depends on claims of supposed probablity that has no data to support it.
Nothing much new here, it’s just another demonstration on how Christian apologetics fail. (memes at the bottom so you can scroll past this)
Considering how there is no one Christian theism, you have quite a problem.
Unsurprisnigly, fine tuning isn’t a scientific observation. Again, scientists have said it “seems” like there is fine tuning, and yet there is no evidence there is. But do show the research that does what you claim, Phillip. Yes, there have been some claims that the cosmological constant must be that accurate but again, nothing shows that this is indeed the case. It is an assumption based on claims of probability that have no data to support them.
The same holds for the EMF and gravity. There are assumptions that things cannot be off by some fraction but again we have no data to support that claim. It is not a consensus among physists, but do show that is the case. You simply wave your hand and claim that the likelihood objection supposedly misses the point. We do need to compare this universe to hypothetical ones since that’s where we get the determination of probability. It’s hilarious when Christians think that they can just stamp their little feet and say something doesn’t apply.
Then you try another common Christian bit of nonsense when you try to excuse your god’s evident poor design. Your god is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient e.g. “perfect”. Just how does a god create a less than perfect design? I know that you would try to claim the “fall” is involved, and yet if you claim that the fall changed everything, then your claims that the universe shows design by your god are false. You can’t know that is the case since you aren’t seeing what your god actually wanted.
Per your own bible, there is no moral agency in humans since your god has already determined who it will allow to accept it, and then damns the rest for no action of their own. There is no free will, no choice at all. You also have the problem that your god says it will never punish anyone for someone else’s actions, so original sin and the fall show that is a false claim, since both are dependent on punishing others for what two people supposedly did.
Curious how Christians claim that imperfect design can’t work with the irreducible complexity argument that creationists use. It’s hilarious that you try to claim that it’s okay your god failed to make a human throat work correctly from the beginning. Surely, being perfect, your god could have worked that out, right? Purpose and perfection. Why is that so hard for your imaginary friend? Same with DNA. It’s always fun when Christians try to claim it isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Unfortuantely, for you, accusations of malicious and/or idiotic design don’t fail to grasp the theological context of your amazingly incompetent god. Your god, per what Christians claim about it, could have made a complex purposeful system with no flaws. It didn’t. Now, Christians must explain why. IT’s notable how you can’t.
When Christians say we can never figure something out, so goddidit, they use a god of the gaps fallacy. You claim that since we do not know everything about consciousness, your god is responsible for it. It’s lovely when Christians try to lie and do so poorly.
Again, you claim that “Consciousness exhibits features like intentionality, subjectivity, and self-awareness, which cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone”. Why not? All you are doing is claiming that since we haven’t yet figured out how it is explained by physical processes alone, it will never be explained that way. You cannot know this to be certain since humans are still researching things. Again, you have no more than a baseless assertion, dependent on humans never doing another moment of research. You make claims like “Materialist accounts, such as emergent properties from neural activity, fail to bridge the explanatory gap between brain states and subjective experience.” Which is simply an assumption this never will be bridged.
Plantinga’s argument fails hilariously and it takes some ignorance to use it. He tries to claim that we can’t trust our brains, and the opposite is demonstrably true. Survival is truth-seeking, since we need to know the truth about the universe to interact with it correctly.
Your attempts to retcon your ignorant claims about atheism being about explaining the universe still fail. Atheism is the default position. Until you can show your god exists, there is no reason to believe that it exists. That holds for any god invented by humans. No features of reality point towards theism, or specifically to your human blood sacrifice by torture needing god. That’s the only one you think exists.
Christians are desperately afraid of the burden of proof they have, that they make the positive assertion: my god exists. If you had evidence, this should not be as frightening as it is for you. My saying that there is no evidence for a god is not a positive claim. This is because it is very difficult to support the claim that something does not exist. Christians can say that there is n evidence for other gods, and they expect the believers in those gods to be the ones who have the burden of proof.
Unsurprisingly, theism doesn’t provide any foundation for science. Nothing shows your god exists or is responsible for any order, intelligibility and predictability of the universe. Indeed, that your religion claims miracles that break such laws shows that your claim is completely baseless. Per your bible, the universe isn’t predictable, so your lies about how a creator shows a predictable universe fail.
Atheism isn’t about explaining the universe and that I have to repeat this is typical to counter Christian lies. Science has not explained yet why the universe operates by laws. It may never completely figure this out. Still no evidence or need for your god.
Christians claim knowledge of their god’s supposed purposes until they get asked hard questions and then they try to whine about how dare anyone ask them to support their claims, insisting how mysterious their god is. How convenient. Christians do not agree on what their bible says, so it does not provide a “reliable framework” for your god’s intentions or anything else.
Again, no evidence for fine-tuning, and thus no evidence for your creator. Your presupposition fails to support your claims. The earth is 80+% lethal to humans. The universe is 99.999…% lethal to humans, so your claims that your god intent was to make a habitable world is amazingly false. No evidence for a fall, for adam and eve, for any event in your bible shows your claims are simply not true.
Then we go to moral values, which is always fun. Christian morality is demonstrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can’t show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn’t have to follow these supposedly “objective” morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little more than might equals right. Divine revelation is even more amusing since Christians can’t agree on what their god tells them.
The objections I have raised show that your baseless claims fail. Science does indeed provide valuable insights into the universe and has consistently shown that your bible’s claims are nonsense. Stars aren’t little lights in a solid dome that can be knocked off. Disease doesn’t come from some god’s feelings. 28,000+ foot deep world-wide floods can’t happen.
There doesn’t need to be an answer to why the universe exists, and again, you assume we can’t figure that out either. You offer yet another god of the gaps argument dependent on humans never doing any more research. Again, we may never completely figure it out, that still doesn’t mean your god exists or is needed. Many religions offer explanations of why the universe is, and not one of them can show that their explanation is true. Your explanations aren’t coherent, since not one of you can show that your imaginary friends exist.
Craig is a notable fraud. Alas for him, atheism isn’t a worldview at all. Atheists have many different worldviews. Atheism is the conclusion that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist. Theists can also be atheists at the same time. I am an atheist when it comes to all gods, including all of the versions of the Christian one, since thre is no evidence for any of them.
I’ve already considered my position, and it does indeed truly address the depth and breadth of those questions. I have evidence. You have a baseless claim that your imaginary friend exists.
Club Schadenfreude 
and if you are really bored, my next response to Phillip who has commented on the above.
And as expected, you can’t show that I’m wrong, Phillip. It’s lovely how you try to claim how precise and careful you are, when you aren’t. Happily, I’ve not “gone astray” at all. You still have nothing more than baseless claims.
Fine-tuning is a proclamation of something that can’t be supported by reality. Whether someone claims gods did it or we are in some simulation, it’s still a baseless claim. Again, no evidence that these ranges are narrow or not, or that something intended them. Again, all you have are a few scientists who find it possible for fine-tuning but again they have no evidence and only have their claim of “well, it looks like it”.
You must compare hypothetical universes to this one to have the ablity to determine probability. Yep, we don’t know anything else is anything but conjecture. That doesn’t matter. A mystery doesn’t show your imaginary friend exists. There is no possibility of a designer, since despite millennia of looking, you theists have nothing. At best, you claim that your god could be hiding under a rock on Ceti Alpha V, which would make it not your god. The reality observed is that it may look like there is design. NO evidence for it though.
Speaking of no evidence, no evidence for your fall nonsense either. Chrsitians can’t even agree when, where, or if it happened, or what its result was. Imperfection from a perfect being disproves design. So, where is the evidence there was once a “perfect” world, Phillip? There doesn’t need to be one, so your attempt to claim there has to be has the same flaws as the ontological argument. Perfect is meaningless.
Perfect design does mean that things can’t go wrong. And no, failure doesn’t point to order since failure depends on that order not happening. One christain explanation, since you all can’t agree, claims that there was perfection and then brokenness, and can’t show either happened.
You have no explanatory power, since you can’t even show your god exists. All you have is a baseless claim: goddidit. Curious how your supposedly omnipotent and omniscient god failed to know that this damage was coming or it knew and did nothing to change it. You can’t show any “artistry” ever existed before what we have now. That is a completely baseless assumption.
The bible is fatalistic. Christians can’t agree if it’s free will or predestination, and they each claim that the bible supports them and only them. Your bible teaches divine sovereignty and that there is no human responsibility. Lewis is a christain who thinks there is free will in his bible. There is no evidence to support that.
Your bible teaches that this god has already chosen who it will allow to accept it, and that it will damn the rest for no action of their own, Romans 9 is quite direct. Your god repeatedly mind controls people to have an excuse to commit genocide. Your god interferes with human actions. How does this work with free will? Then we have this god saying that no one is responsible for their actions as long as they believe in it, with the convenient scapegoat of the devil. It isn’t just “divine foreknowledge” like many Christians try to use as a dodge, it’s this god’s actions against humans. Your analogy to an author fails. The choices of characters is always the requirement of the author.
Yes, atheism is the default position, since humans have so many gods that they can’t show exist. Yep, atheists say that no god exists, and thus the theist must show that their god does exist. That theists can’t show that their gods exist is all the justification needed. Plantinga argues nonsense since we know that we interact correctly with reality. Nothing is suspect. Why shouldn’t we expect our brains to be able to perceive reality? The theist claim is that we need their imaginary friend. I don’t start with that presupposition, so I don’t need to find a job for a god.
You are right, that science hasn’t found various things isn’t evidence for atheism. The utter lack of evidence produced by theists is. Again, nothing shows that your imaginary friend or any other religion’s imaginary friend is needed. No postponing anything.
Nice of you to show how Christian morality is indeed subjective. There’s plenty of basis to judge others, and yep, it’s subjective morality. Happily, humans invent morality and since it is subjective, it can change. We can throw out the garbage in the bible. Again, still no evidence for your god and since christains can’t agree on what morality this god wants, much less show their god’s approval, you have nothing more than subjective morality, each little cult claiming that only their version is the right one again. So much for some “transcendent source of morality”. No evidence your god exists or that it is ultimate goodness, since Christians can’t agree on what goodness is. You can’t show any “consistent standard” at all.
This next one is great fun. Yep, a miracle by definition is something that can’t happen in the established universe. If miracles can happen, then there are no stable laws that can’t be broken. You have to whine but but it’s just temporary, which shows how your lies fail. Even if it is temporary, the laws are still broken and your stable universe ceases. The laws do not remain intact, since this god can ignore them. No evidence of miracles, so there is no problem with denying they happen. Per your own bible, every true believer should be able to do miracles. Curious how that never happens. You and your fellows are frauds per your own holy book.
Curious how you can’t show any of this supposed evidence for your bible, and you find you must lie that it is a “sweeping” claim to say there is no evidence. Archaeology does not support the bible’s claims of events. At best it shows that believers in these religions existed. It does not show that what they believe is true. History has no one noticing the events in the bible, from the flood, to a guy wandering around being followed by a literal roman legion’s worth of men in roman occupied Judea and a certain day where there was a major earthquake, the sky darkening and dead jews wandering around roman-occupied Jerusalem during a Passover. There are no texual studies that align with biblical accounds, but again do supply them if you think they exist.
Genesis is an ignorant set of claims that aren’t true at all. So much for your claim of a “masterpiece”. You have two contradictory stories, that make claims like stars are little lights in a solid dome that can fall off, a woman was created from a rib, etc. It says nothing about human nature. What you have is a story about a god who makes amoral humans, one version they are made together, the other, one is made from a rib after this god is too stupid to realize that the other animals can’t be Adam’s mate. Then we have this god telling adam and eve not to eat the fruit from one tree, which doesn’st have to be where it is. They are amoral and thus have no idea that being obedient is “good”. Then the snake shows up, which means either your god allowed it in, and didn’t warn adam and eve, or couldn’t keep it out. It shows how this god lies, and eve takes morality for humans. Your god never gives morality to humans. Then this god throws a temper tantrum and blames adam and eve for its failure, kicking them out and cursing every human for what it failed at. Curious how your god later says it would never harm anyone for another’s actions. Which time did it lie?
Again, no evidence for this nonsense, or your god, so no “estrangement” from imaginary nonsense.
You simply assume your book is “rich” and has “depth” since you are emotionally invested in it. You need to pretend how special it is.
I know my objections work. And you have yet to show any of them wrong, nor can you support your lies about my supposed refusal to grapple with these nuances that don’t exist. Your arguments have no implications since your arguments can’t show your imaginary friend exists or that your sadistic fantasies will come true.
C.S. Lewis isn’t very impressive since he makes up his Christianity just like every other christian. He makes baseless claims like the one you quoted. That nonsense is based on a presupposition he can’t support. His nonsense about “mere Christianity” is quite a failure, since there is no singular Christianity, and in its preface this fellow says to lie to potential converts since the splintering of the religion might put them off. This is called a lie of omission, intentionally preventing someone from making an informed decision. Shame this god hates lies and liars.
Happily, no one needs your imaginary friend to have meaning. Us humans give that to our selves and others. No evidnce for design, just the baseless claims of theists, who can’t agree on whose imaginary friend did it. No question about morality, humans invented it. No questin about purpose, humans made that for ourselves too. Consciousness is still partially a mystery, and nothing shows that magic is its source.
LikeLike
and another one: Hmm, and still no evidence for your religion’s claims, Phillip. Christians often try claim that “people” will see that I’m wrong, even though they can’t show that to be true.
You again make more baseless claims, trying to cloak them in your nonsense about “oversimplification”. Do show where a false belief is as advantageous as a true one. Surely you can, right? Your analogy of the bush and the tiger isn’t based on a false belief. It is based on the fact that the bush could be moving because the bush could be moving from a tiger since there is evidence it can be. There is nothing false in that assumption.
Platinga still fails.
Funny how I’ve not been betrayed by my brain, and most humans have not too. It is rare that the brain does not work correctly. Again, nothing shows that my thoughts aren’t aligned with the truth. Evidence has reliably shown that. Curious how this brain you claim your god designed, can’t even agree on the supposed “truth” of your cult.
Yep, I dismiss the soul as a magical bit of nonsense, since again, no soul can be produced by theists. It’s hilarious when you try to make a difference between “immaterial essence of a person connected to their body and mind” and what is the same thing “a separate operator pulling the strings of the brain”.
So do tell how “immaterial essence” can be connected to the material. Surely you can, right? Neurological evidence shows that the brain produces the mind, and we can see that when the brain is injured. So why would damage to the material bother the supposed “immaterial soul”?
You have yet to show that materialism is wrong and that anything else exists. It is quite empirically proven that materialism exists. Do show where your magic resides. Materialism can account for ideas and thoughts. They don’t exist without the brain. Why not trust that atoms generate meaningful rational thought? Again, you have no evidence that your god is responsible, and I have plenty of evidence that the mind comes from the brain, not some immaterial imaginary friend.
Sincen not one theist can show that their god exists, they are imaginary friends since those also can’t be shown to exist. It is indeed ridicule and fact. Again, you simply lie when you claim it is up to me to show your god doesn’t exist. You don’t believe that other gods exist, so do show how you can show they don’t. I’ll use the method you use, Phillip.
As for those philosophical arguments for your god, curiosu how they can apply to any god. The cosmological argument e.g. the first cause argument never needs a god, and despite many cults trying to use it for their gods, they can never get there.
The teleological argument is the design argument and that fails since not one of you theists can show your god merely exists, much less was the creator.
The moral argument fails since no theist can show that objective morality exists, and since not one can agree on what their god wants, no reason to believe that there has to be an objective morality that any has gotten right.
The ontological argument fails since theists can’t agree on what “maximally great” even means. As soon as it is defined, then anyone can imagine something better than it.
You try so hard to appeal to popularity and tradition, both fallacies that don’t work to show your cult’s nonsense is true. Yep, lots of “philosophical discourse” and still no gods.
I know it’s true that Christians disagree, and on the most basic things. It actually does negate the existence of God, since you can’t agree on what it is, nor can you show it exists. You each invent a contradictory version to the rest. Your cult isn’t complex, Phillip. You simply all claim baseless nonsense as a “truth”, and not one of you can put up the goods to show that your version is any better than another. You may be able to claim that there could be something that can be called a “god”, but it isn’t yours.
Yep, no evidence for your god. No philosophical argument has shown a god exists. No empirical evidence exists to show that a god exists. Again, you claim fine-tuning, which doesn’t exist. The origin of life doesn’t show that a god is needed. Morals are subjective and not one theist can show they are objective, but do try if you’d like. No evidence that jesus christ existed, much less came back from being dead. Not one deserves serious consideration and not one can show that a god exists at all.
Atheism is the default position and atheism is the conclusion that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist. Again, no evidence exists that shows your imaginary friend is real. That is my justification, just like sincen there is no evidence that fairies exist, I have concluded that fairies are not real.
Why shouldn’t the universe have order? You assume that order is needed and comes from your god. It can just as well be that universes simply do have order, no god needed to impose it at all. You need to invent a job for your imaginary friend. You lie and claim that there are “universal principals of right and wrong”. There aren’t, and humans do not appeal to something that doesn’t exist. Not one of you frauds can show that there are objective morals.
Consciousness doesn’t “yield” truth. The mind deduces what is the truth.
Why would reason and logic not be reliable? You assume they come from your imaginary friend and have no evidence for it. Evolution can support why our reason works since it has to accommodate incoming facts that tell us how to react in this world. Logic is simply a description on how the universe works. It is nothing separate.
It’s hilarious how you try to represent the same lies and presuppositions yet again in your “questions”. We can’t completely explain consciousness yet. Still no evidence your god exists or is needed. No evidence immaterial nonsense exists, like your god, the soul, etc. The brain produces ideas like justice, love, truth, etc. Why it does than and why it can? Don’t know yet. Your god of the gaps nonsense fails.
Why do baseless claims resonate with some humans? Because humans can be very ignorant, needing to pretend some imaginary being loves them and is their best friend. It’s an intoxicating idea. Lots of humans believe very ridiculous things, and even smart people aren’t immune. Your attempt at an argument from authority fails like the fallacy it is. Aquinas, Plantinga, etc aren’t as smart as you hope they are.
Yep, I dismiss Plantinga’s nonsense since there is no evidence to support it. I have used careful reasoning and that also shows that Christian apologetics fail ever single time. Alas, poor Phillip, you can’t show I’m wrong in knowing that naturalism allows reliable cognition and that reality is materialism. You keep trying to convince me that your baseless claims are true, and you fail. As for ridicule, it works quite well as engagement, since you have the delusion that no one should ridicule your baseless nonsense. And yet Christians claim other theists are wrong all of the time, claiming that Muslims worship a pedophile, etc. Challenge all you’d like. You’ll still fail.
Lewis fails again which isn’t surprising. You, and lewis, assume you and you alone have that “straight line” and not one of you frauds can show that to be true. It’s always fun when Christians try to convince themselves that I really agree with them and want their lies of truth, purpose and consistency. Happily, I do not. Every cultist claims that their god is “truth itself” and again, shame not one of you frauds can support your claims. I know my skeptism is reasonable, and your flailing and lies support that even more.
You assume your god exists and you know its will. Just like every other cultist. I am, to put it mildly, not impressed. Christians do love to claim rebellion, when they cant’ even agree on what I’m supposed to be rebelling against.
LikeLike
I appreciate your interest in my blog, and the article content, and for helping promote it. I sincerely hope that those who visit your blog read the full exchange and decide for themselves who has defended their position effectively and convincingly. At times, in such exchanges as our own, either of us may be immovable in our positions, but my desire is that less obligated individuals find the article and exchange and are convinced of the truth.
I as well see you are a science fiction fan. Anything in particular you enjoy reading? Dune series? Saga of Seven Suns?
LikeLike
Phillip, I’m sure they will read your claims and see them for what they are. I am not unmoveable, but I will not move for someone who has no evidence for their claims. I have a mix of readers, from atheists to christians. The atheists are as familiar as I am with how christian claims aren’t supported.
I’ve read a lot of science fiction. I read the first Dune book but didn’t find it to my taste. I did like the first movie version. I’m a big fan of Babylon 5 and the original Star Trek. I also like the animated star wars series and the first trilogy and I like Larry Niven’s Known Space books. The saga of seven suns looks good. I have a subscription to Everand and see that there is a novella prequel to it there so I’ll read that. I did like Anderson’s superman book, the last days of krypton. I also used to read a lot of comic books but not so much anymore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We obviously have areas we disagree on regarding to theistic and atheistic claims and support, but that simply is what it is.
I’m starting the prequel series of Dune written by Kevin J. Anderson and Frank’s son, Brian. It has been fun to read so far. Anderson’s Saga of Seven Suns was a stellar 7 book read, and I’ve started getting the newer subsequent series that continues the story. I’m excited for it. I’ve appreciated Larry Niven’s work too. I’ve not read any of the Star Trek or Babylon 5. I did like Anderson’s Last Days of Krypton as well.
At least we have some common ground here that can be appreciated.
LikeLike
yes. Just started Veiled Alliances and it seems that if you like the saga of seven worlds, you owuld like Babylon 5 the tv series (1st season is something to endure, and the last season can be skipped) and its attendent novels.
LikeLike
Does classical logical proof play a role in your positions?
LikeLike
Classical logic absolutely plays a role in my positions, especially when discussing the existence of God or engaging with concepts like causality, order, and intelligibility in the universe. For example, the Cosmological Argument relies on principles such as the law of causality and the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes. Similarly, the Moral Argument involves deductive reasoning based on premises about moral values and duties. While faith is certainly integral to my worldview, I believe that faith and reason complement each other, and I strive to approach discussions logically, ensuring my beliefs are coherent and defensible.
LikeLike
can you explain how the cosmological argument needs your god?
LikeLike
To clarify, the Cosmological Argument doesn’t assume or require the existence of God upfront or as you put it “need god.” Instead, it provides a logical framework for understanding why the universe exists and explores the nature of its ultimate cause. It’s one part of a broader cumulative case for the existence of God. You’ve claimed a few times that such arguments failed, but any reason you’ve happened to give for that claim haven’t really negated them. You disagree with the conclusions (however logically sounds it is) but it seems your disagreement is more centered on a dislike of the conclusion than actual argumentation against the argument and its conclusion. After all, the argument ultimately just has to be more convincing than its negation. For instance, you and others claim ad nauseum that there’s “no evidence for god” while disagreeing with or arguing against the evidence and reasons themselves given for belief. Sure, again, you disagree, but that disagreement doesn’t entail “no evidence” but rather “I disagree with this particular evidence.”
LikeLike
The cosmological argument fails to show a god is needed, since various things can be the “first cause”. Your assumption that a god, and particular your version of the christian god, must be the first cause is baseless.
When christians, and other theists, must invent a “cumulative case for the existence of god” it demonstrates that they have no actual evidence it exists. Appealing to philosophical arguments that do not require your god shows the weakness in this case. Yur attempt to claim that the argument “just has to be more convincing than its negation” is curious. More convincing to whom and how?
My like or dislike has nothing to do with reality. There is simply nothing that requires your god to exist. I don’t disagree with evidence, there is none.
LikeLike
Your critique of the Cosmological Argument misrepresents its purpose and implications. The argument doesn’t arbitrarily conclude that “God,” let alone the Christian God, is the first cause. Instead, it logically demonstrates the necessity of a cause for the universe, which is best explained as an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial reality. This conclusion isn’t “baseless” but follows from the evidence and principles embedded in the argument. A physical or natural “first cause” is inadequate because nature itself—space, time, and matter—came into existence at the Big Bang. Any sufficient explanation must transcend these categories. Philosophical reasoning shows that only a personal cause—capable of choosing to create—accounts for the universe’s beginning, as an impersonal cause would lack the ability to initiate anything.
As for your claim that building a cumulative case reveals weakness: that’s simply incorrect. A cumulative case strengthens a conclusion by presenting independent lines of evidence, such as the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective moral values, and the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. This method is standard in rational inquiry, whether in science, law, or philosophy. Your assertion that “there is no evidence” ignores the abundant arguments and data presented across these disciplines. Lastly, dismissing arguments because they appeal to philosophical reasoning reflects a misunderstanding of how we establish rational conclusions. If you demand evidence that meets your preferred criteria but reject valid philosophical evidence outright, you’re engaging in a self-defeating standard of proof. The question isn’t whether you like the evidence but whether the arguments and reasoning are sound—and the Cosmological Argument stands firm in that regard.
LikeLike
again, you present assertions as facts. Christians have tried to claim that the cosmological argument fits only their god, and it does not. No evidence for “immaterial reality”, a term that I suspect you can’t define.
We think that time space and matter came into existence during the big bang. That has been challenged since we simply don’t know what came before it, or if there was a “before”. You claiming yuor god is timeless means it cannot do anything, since time is the sequence of events. So your claim of a “transcendent” god simply doesn’t make any sense at all.
No need for a personal cause either since many natural events have no personal cause. Nothign shows that an impersonal cause can’t initiate something. The laws of physics initiates lots of things. So your “philosophy” fails yet again.
There are no different lines of evidence in your case for god since again, there is no evdience for it. No fine tuning. No evidence for objective moral values. No historical evidence for jesus or his resurrection.
You have yet to show this supposedly “abundant data”, Phillip. Again, you depend on assesrtions, not facts.
Philsophical “reasoning” is evidence for vanishingly little. A human comes up with an idea and then triess to show how it can work. Not that it works. Most of philosophy is long abandoned since reality didn’t match it. One can use the same “philosophical arguments” for any god. Evidence that can be applied to different claims seems not to be evidnce at all.
LikeLike
Your reply conflates assertions with arguments and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Cosmological Argument and related concepts. First, the Cosmological Argument doesn’t arbitrarily assign the conclusion to the Christian God but posits a necessary, timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause. These attributes logically follow from the premises, given that the cause must transcend the finite, material universe. Your claim that “immaterial reality” cannot be defined ignores well-established concepts, such as mathematical truths, abstract objects, or even consciousness, which are immaterial but undeniably real.
Regarding time and causality, your argument that a timeless being “cannot do anything” misunderstands the nature of causality outside of time. A timeless cause initiates effects at the moment time begins—this isn’t contradictory but precisely what we’d expect from a cause beyond spacetime. Moreover, appealing to the laws of physics as a sufficient cause falters because these laws describe the behavior of matter and energy within the universe; they don’t explain their origin. Laws require a framework to operate within—they don’t exist independently or create anything.
Finally, dismissing evidence for fine-tuning, objective morality, or historical evidence for Jesus without engagement doesn’t invalidate these arguments—it simply demonstrates an unwillingness to address them seriously. Your critique of philosophical reasoning as invalid for evidence is self-refuting; you rely on philosophy to critique it. The Cosmological Argument remains robust, and your objections fail to address its core premises or conclusions meaningfully. If you reject the evidence and reasoning presented, the burden is on you to provide a better explanation for the origin and intelligibility of the universe—mere dismissals won’t suffice.
LikeLike
do show why this must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause. Show how an immaterial cause can work with material.
Those thinsg yuo mentin aren’t immaterial reality. They are part of this reality and cannot existed without it. Consciouness cmes from the brain. No magical “souls” to be found.
I understand causality quite well, and having no past or future, your intelligent being can do nothing. This is hilariously circular “A timeless cause initiates effects at the moment time begins—this isn’t contradictory but precisely what we’d expect from a cause beyond spacetime.”
no, it’s what you need for your god to be able to exist. Why would we “expect” this? We don’t know if the laws of physics, including quantum physics, only describe what goeds on in this spacetime. Nothign shows that these laws aren’t the framework you claim is needed.
Again, you have yet to show any evidence for fine-tuning. Yu have made up quite a few things. You have shown no evidence for objective morality and certainly none to show that christanity has it. There is no historical evidence for magic jesus or historical jesus. All christians have are reports on what christians believed, not that what they believed is true. I have addressed them seriously, showing how your claims of evidence all fail to be that.
Unsurprisingly, you can’t show I’m wrong about “philosophical reasons” and do show where I supposedly use “philosophy” to critique these reasons. Surely you can, right?
The cosmological argument still fails and again claims that can be used for many gods isn’t evdience for any of them. Happily, I odn’t offer “mere dismissals”. I don’t need to provide a better explanation. I just have to show that yours fails. We simply don’t know enough yet. and your arguments have become just a embroidered god of the gaps fallacy.
LikeLike
Your response, again, misunderstands key aspects of the argument and continues to rely on assertions without substantive counterpoints. The necessity of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause arises logically from the nature of the universe’s beginning. A material cause cannot explain the origin of all matter and energy, as it would require preexisting material, leading to circular reasoning. Similarly, causality in the absence of time is not contradictory—it reflects the reality that time itself began with the universe. Philosophical reasoning supports this, and your dismissal of it as “circular” fails to address the argument.
Consciousness, mathematical truths, and abstract concepts do not depend on material reality; they are immaterial in nature, even if their expression in human understanding involves physical brains. Reductionist claims about consciousness being “just the brain” are speculative and ignore competing perspectives in neuroscience and philosophy of mind.
Your appeal to “we simply don’t know enough yet” is precisely what you accuse me of—a refusal to engage with the evidence presented. Fine-tuning, objective morality, and historical evidence for Jesus have been extensively argued and supported by scholars. If you disagree, you need to refute the specific evidence rather than dismiss it wholesale. Finally, your invocation of a “god of the gaps” fallacy misrepresents the argument. The Cosmological Argument is not about filling gaps but providing a reasoned explanation for why the universe exists. Dismissing it without a better alternative is not a critique; it’s avoidance.
LikeLike
Phillip Mast
Exactly what evidence for the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth are you referring to?
Thanks
LikeLike
The existence of Jesus as a historical figure is supported by a wide range of evidence, including accounts from secular and agnostic scholars. For instance, Bart Ehrman, an agnostic historian, has written extensively about the overwhelming consensus among historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. He notes that we have more evidence for Jesus than for most figures of antiquity. Non-Christian sources such as Tacitus, Josephus (even with debated interpolations), and Pliny the Younger also reference Jesus, his crucifixion, and the movement he inspired. These accounts, though not written to validate Christianity, corroborate key aspects of Jesus’ life and death.
Moving to the resurrection, the Minimal Facts Approach, developed by Gary Habermas and widely cited in scholarship, focuses on points nearly all historians—Christian, secular, and skeptical—accept:
These minimal facts are just the starting point. A full case for the resurrection includes analyzing alternative theories—hallucinations, myth development, or fraud—and showing their inadequacy to explain the data as comprehensively as the resurrection.
At the heart of this is the challenge: What do we do with Jesus? His claims to divinity, teachings, and the transformation of history demand attention. If the resurrection happened, it validates his identity and message. The objections to the resurrection are not new, and each has been addressed. Ultimately, the evidence points to Jesus as a real figure whose resurrection has the power to shape not just history but personal belief. How we respond to this evidence shapes our view of truth itself.
LikeLike
While I acknowledge your obvious enthusiasm I did not ask for the Habermas / Licona spiel of Apologetics Arseholery.
Therefore, once again.
What evidence is there for the claim the bible character Jesus of Nazareth resurrected?
Heads up. The key word here is evidence. Not claim, not belief and not the erroneous term “minimal facts”, but evidence.
And please, I realize you are super keen about your indoctrinated religious beliefs, but I am not quite so wet behind the ears as you may think. Therefore, please stick to evidence and only evidence.
PS. Those convicted of sedition ( as was the character Jesus of Nazareth) were invariably left on the cross to rot or, if lucky, thrown in a common grave /ditch, With this in mind, if you choose to once again insert the phrase ’empty tomb’ I feel I have to insist you provide archaeological evidence.
Over to you.
LikeLike
Ah, I see you’ve decided to grace the discussion with a blend of rhetorical bravado and selective skepticism. Very well. Let’s address your queries with clarity and evidence, since you claim to seek it.
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a historical claim, and as with any ancient historical claim, the evidence is multifaceted, combining textual, circumstantial, and archaeological components.
Textual Evidence: The New Testament, particularly the Gospels and Pauline epistles, provides multiple independent attestations of the resurrection.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8, widely accepted by critical scholars as an early Christian creed, dates to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion. This is not “belief” but a piece of historical evidence for what early Christians claimed occurred. See Bart Ehrman (an agnostic historian): “Paul’s letters are the earliest witnesses to the life and resurrection of Jesus.”
Extra-Biblical Attestation: Josephus (Jewish historian) in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 refers to Jesus’ crucifixion and the movement around his followers. The Testimonium Flavianum, even in its interpolated form, acknowledges Jesus existed, was crucified, and sparked belief in his resurrection.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44, confirms Jesus’ execution under Pontius Pilate, providing a Roman corroboration of Jesus’ death.
Archaeological Evidence: The empty tomb narrative aligns with known burial practices of wealthy Jews like Joseph of Arimathea, whose involvement fits the socio-political context of 1st-century Judea. The Talpiot Tomb is occasionally suggested in scholarly discussions, though conclusions vary.
Additionally, ossuaries and inscriptions like the Caiaphas ossuary demonstrate 1st-century Jewish burial practices, including tomb use before decomposition.
Circumstantial Evidence: The transformation of Jesus’ disciples from scattered, fearful men into bold proclaimers of his resurrection, even at the cost of their lives, is documented by early sources, including Acts and external martyrdom accounts.
The establishment of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, a location that could easily refute claims of an empty tomb if it weren’t factual, is significant evidence.
Your dismissal of the empty tomb as requiring archaeological evidence shows a misunderstanding of historical methodology. Forensic archaeology does not typically confirm specific ancient claims of resurrection. However, the tomb narrative is corroborated by early creedal material (1 Cor. 15) and multiple attestation. To insist on “archaeological evidence” for an empty tomb while ignoring the evidentiary weight of textual and historical sources is arbitrary.
Regarding your “convicted of sedition” point, while it is true that Roman crucifixion victims were often left to rot, exceptions existed for cultural sensitivity (e.g., Jewish burial laws, cf. Deuteronomy 21:22-23). Archaeological finds, like the crucified remains of Yehohanan (with an ankle nail still embedded), confirm that crucified individuals were indeed buried in some cases.
The Minimal Facts Approach is not an evasion of evidence but a method built on what critical scholars across the spectrum agree upon:
Jesus was crucified and died.
His tomb was found empty.
His disciples believed they saw him alive after his death.
Paul, a persecutor of Christians, converted after experiencing what he claimed was a post-resurrection appearance.
This approach relies on the consensus of skeptical and believing scholars alike (e.g., Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Licona, Gary Habermas). Dismissing it as “Apologetics Arseholery” only highlights your disdain, not a substantive critique.
If you’re “not as wet behind the ears” as you claim, you should know that historical evidence is not confined to archaeology alone. Textual criticism, historical context, and corroboration from non-Christian sources collectively build a robust evidentiary framework. If the scholarly case for the resurrection seems “minimal” to you, that’s a reflection of your selective bias, not the depth of evidence presented.
I’m happy to continue this discussion if you’re genuinely interested in engaging with the data. However, if your aim is merely to dismiss, then I’ll save my time for those who approach the evidence with intellectual honesty.
LikeLike
Once again you seem determined to drive the entire circuit when I simply asked you to stop at the first bend.
I reiterate, I have no interest in Habermas style apologetics.
I am asking you to provide evidence for the claim that the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead
Not the crucifiction, not Annals nor the TF.
I am not interested in your supposed in depth knowledge of historical methodology, or whether there was a 1st century itinnerent rabbi called Yeshua.
I am ONLY intererested in the evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim the bible character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
If you decide to offer a further reply you might need to consult a dictionary for the precise meaning of the word evidence.
Re:the empty tomb.
Again we are dealing with a claim. A claim about a tomb which I have read a number of scholars regard a a later addition.
certainly, Saul had no motion of such a buriel place.
Therefore, if you are determined to include this aspect in your reply I must insist you provide archaeological evidence.
LikeLike
Shifting the goalposts again I guess, accompanied by yet more rhetorical flourish. Let’s clear the air: your selective dismissal of what constitutes “evidence” reveals less about the inadequacy of the case and more about your unwillingness to engage with it. Nevertheless, I’ll insist on the evidence specifically for the resurrection of Jesus, and I’ll reiterate and expand a little bit more on the case.
You reject the Minimal Facts Approach, but here’s the reality: these facts represent a scholarly consensus precisely because they are supported by evidence. Your dismissal of them as “claims” does not make them less evidentiary—only your unwillingness to engage with their implications does.
The Crucifixion: Why start here? Because no resurrection can happen without a death. Jesus’ crucifixion is one of the best-attested events in ancient history, corroborated by Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources. Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges this as “one of the most certain facts of history.”
The Empty Tomb: You demand “archaeological evidence” of an empty tomb, as if such a thing could ever be excavated or preserved. What would satisfy you? A roped-off hole with a sign that says, “Jesus slept here”? The evidence for the empty tomb is based on multiple independent attestations (e.g., Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 15) and the early Jerusalem context, where disproving the claim would have been as simple as producing a body.
Furthermore:
Secular scholars like Michael Grant and E.P. Sanders concede the empty tomb as plausible, even if they don’t accept the resurrection itself.
Post-Crucifixion Appearances: The post-crucifixion appearances are widely attested, not just by Christian texts but through Paul’s epistles, written within two decades of the events. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, an early creed, lists appearances to individuals, groups, and skeptics like Paul. Your demand for evidence ignores the transformation of these witnesses:
Mass hallucinations? Sociological delusions? None of these alternative explanations adequately account for the variety, frequency, and group dynamics of these appearances. Even skeptic Gerd Lüdemann admits the disciples experienced something they believed was the risen Christ.
The Origin and Growth of the Church: The rapid emergence of the Christian Church in the very city where Jesus was crucified is itself circumstantial evidence. The disciples were neither charismatic leaders nor revolutionaries, yet they proclaimed a resurrection in the face of persecution and martyrdom. People don’t willingly die for something they know to be a lie.
Regarding “Archaeological Evidence.” You’re clinging to archaeology as if it were the only valid form of evidence. That’s not how historical methodology works. We don’t demand archaeological proof of every claim about Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar’s assassination. Textual criticism, eyewitness testimony, and historical context are equally valid forms of evidence.
Let’s also talk about evidence. You insist the minimal facts aren’t evidence. This reflects a misunderstanding of what evidence entails. Evidence is anything that makes a claim more probable than it would be without it. The empty tomb, post-crucifixion appearances, and the disciples’ transformations all qualify. That you refuse to accept them as evidence doesn’t make them invalid—it only demonstrates your unwillingness to engage honestly with the data.
If your objection boils down to “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” consider this: what evidence would convince you? A video recording? That’s impossible in the context of ancient history. The resurrection is not an everyday occurrence; it’s an event that demands evaluation through multiple lines of evidence, which is exactly what we have.
At the end of the day, the resurrection is not just a historical question; it’s a personal one. What will you do with Jesus? History attests to his existence, his crucifixion, and the transformation of those who claimed to have seen him alive. No alternate theory explains the data as cohesively as the resurrection. Dismissing the evidence outright doesn’t disprove the claim; it only evades the implications.
So, are you genuinely interested in engaging with the evidence, or is your skepticism just a convenient excuse? From what you’ve given so far, amidst the evidence I’ve been sharing, it is the latter reason, not the former.
LikeLike
Yet another tome of apologetics that I really have no interest in. Please for future reference spare yourself the time on the keyboard, as I will. simply skip scan to find the answer I have asked for.
The goalposts have remained firmly in position since my opening question.
I have not questioned or denied the crucifixtion of the character Yeshua.
Nor at this stage the claims of the event made by Tacitus or Josephus. (Although we can most certainly look at each of these passages in a later post of you wish? )
So,once AGAIN please provide evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the claim that the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
The overall ‘minimal facts argument’ from Habermas is not evidence, as it contains unsubstantiated claims.
Therefore, I urge you once more; read a dictionary and fully familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word evidence.
Feel free to post the definition if you want.
Meantime, let me try to help you out to illustrate what is evidence.
This question, while not directly related to the topic at hand, will help me understand your specific perspective.
It is a straightforward ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer and requires no equivocation and no lengthy reply which you seem to enjoy.
Quedtion: Do you accept the evidence for the Theory of Evolution?
Yes
or
No.
LikeLike
A seemingly anticipated deflection to evolution—a classic tactic to shift the discussion away from the resurrection. But let’s indulge your detour briefly before returning to the matter at hand.
First, let’s address your fixation on the word “evidence.” From Merriam-Webster, evidence is defined as:
“Something that furnishes proof: testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.”
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, evidence is:
“That which supports or counters a hypothesis, proposition, or claim, providing justification for belief or knowledge.”
Notice that evidence can take multiple forms, including textual, testimonial, and circumstantial. It need not always be physical or archaeological, which seems to be the only kind you’ll accept. Your narrow definition reveals a misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence in historical inquiry.
Now, to your evolution question:
Yes, I accept the evidence for micro-evolution (observable changes within species). However, the evidence for macro-evolution (major transitions from one species to another) is less conclusive and open to interpretation. Even so, I wouldn’t dismiss the evidence provided outright as “not evidence” simply because I may find alternative explanations more compelling. Unlike your approach here, I would engage with the data and explain why I think it fails to meet its claims in light of competing theories.
Returning to the resurrection, you dismiss the Minimal Facts Approach as “unsubstantiated claims.” Ironically, this reveals either ignorance of the method or unwillingness to engage honestly. Let me break this down for you, bluntly and briefly:The Minimal Facts:
Each of these facts has independent, well-documented support across secular and Christian sources. You dismiss them as “unsubstantiated claims” without addressing their substance or the scholarly consensus behind them. That’s not intellectual rigor; it’s selective skepticism.
Let’s clarify something fundamental:
The resurrection claim is supported by textual, testimonial, and circumstantial evidence. Is it “proof” in the scientific sense? Of course not—historical events aren’t proved with lab experiments. But the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence provides a robust case.
If you’re willing to engage with the data (and not just skip-scan for convenient dismissal), I’d be glad to continue. But if your intent is merely to demand impossible standards of “archaeological evidence” while dodging your own inconsistencies, this discussion won’t be productive.
The question remains: Are you willing to engage with the actual evidence, or is your skepticism just a rhetorical smokescreen? After several replies, you’ve thrown up excuses for not engaging the evidence and refused to engage. For constructive dialogue, you have to engage, otherwise this play on words to avoid engaging is simply intellectual dishonesty or being disingenuous. Either way, this continued effort on your part is simply aimed at having me throw pearls before swine. You aren’t willing to engage truthfully, so I’m given no recourse but to assume this is a waste of time. In the end you do yourself a disservice because you’ll never move past this sophomoric and shallow approach to the evidence and remain, ignorantly and firmly, in your rejection of God, the Truth, and the resulting consequences of that.
As the saying goes, “You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.”
LikeLike
From the Oxford.
Evidence. Noun.
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
So everything about the RESURRECTION ( capitalized so you might realize I have no interest in all your other offerings surrounding it) is nothing but unsubstantiated claims based on the supposed writings in the anonymous gospels.
NOT evidence.
I hope this is now clear for you?
Re: evolution. I did say the question was straightforward and no equivocation was necessary yet you still felt the need to offer more Christian slanted spiel.
The answer you were looking for as to whether you accept the evidence for evolution was: No.
LikeLike
You’ve cherry-picked a definition of evidence from Oxford while conveniently ignoring the context of historical inquiry. As I’ve explained (and you’ve ignored), historical evidence includes testimonial, textual, and circumstantial data—all of which are valid forms of evidence in determining whether an event occurred. Your blanket dismissal of the resurrection accounts as “unsubstantiated claims” is lazy skepticism, not a critique.
Are the Gospel accounts anonymous? Debated, yes, but that’s not the same as discredited. Even if anonymity were granted, the content they contain is corroborated by early Church testimony, hostile sources (like Tacitus), and the transformational impact on the early disciples. That’s called evidence. It may not convince you, but your refusal to engage doesn’t make it disappear.
I hope that’s now clear for you?
Your annoyance at my nuanced response betrays your unwillingness to deal with scientific distinctions. My differentiation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution isn’t “Christian slanted spiel”; it’s rooted in scientific discourse. Whether you like it or not, when you ask a complex question, I’m going to answer it adequately. If you wanted a simplistic “yes” or “no,” you should have framed the question to reflect the nuance of reality—or adjusted your expectations.
Dismissing my careful response as “Christian slanted spiel” doesn’t demonstrate critical thinking; it reveals a bias that discredits your ability to engage in serious dialogue.3. On Your Approach to This Discussion:
It’s abundantly clear that you’re not interested in evidence—only in maintaining the illusion that no evidence exists. You’ve dismissed all historical methods and arguments as “claims” without addressing their content, and you’ve shifted the goalposts repeatedly. This isn’t intellectual honesty; it’s rhetorical gamesmanship.
So, let’s wrap this up:
Feel free to keep skipping, scanning, and dismissing. But know this: avoiding engagement doesn’t refute the evidence—it only reveals the limits of your own skepticism.
Best of luck in your pursuit of…whatever it is you’re actually looking for. It’s not truth as you’re avoiding it like the plaque under the guise of intellectual superiority. This might influence or work on timid adolescents, but it’s not going to work with me. I see through your smokescreen and emotional barriers. I hope you come to the knowledge of the truth and truly live.
LikeLike
I did not cherry pick from Oxford it was the very first entry. And it is accurate.
A claim remains a claim and is not evidence unless it can be substantiated.
You have yet to understand /acknowledge the difference.
As you continue to refuse to provide evidence of the resurrection I did not bother with the rest of your apologetic dumbfuckwittery.
LikeLike
I tend to refuse to throw pearls to those out to dismiss evidence on its face for no reason other than to simply claim there is no evidence.
LikeLike
When you develop the integrity to acknowledge what is evidence, rather than unsubstantiated claims and also recognise you are an indoctrinated Christian whose beliefs about such things as the gospels, the resurrection, archaeology, and evolution are first and foremost primarily dictated by your faith then you will be able to keep all your pearls instead of clutching them.
LikeLike
nice turn of phrase, ark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a typical excuse many christians give, Phillip, when they have no evidence for their claims. You try to blame the person asking for evidence, calling them “swine”. Either you have evidence or not. Claims aren’t evidence for themselves. Both ark and i have repeatedly shown you how that works. I suspect you would not accept such actions as you have demonstrated from another theist whose god you don’t believe in.
LikeLike
I’ve provided historical evidence, explained its validity, and addressed your selective skepticism, yet you dismiss it all without meaningful engagement. That’s not intellectual rigor; it’s willful ignorance.
As for pearls before swine, it’s an apt metaphor because no matter how much I offer, you trample it and demand more. Rejecting evidence as evidence doesn’t make it disappear—it just shows you prefer the comfort of denial over the challenge of considering a perspective that might unsettle you.
Enjoy your echo chamber. I’m done here.
LikeLike
You have not offered historical evidence. At best you have offered the possiblity of a delusional jewish fellow who thought he was the messiah. This is not who you worship nor is it who supposed resurrected. There is literally no evidence of anyone ever coming back form the dead. As I’ve noted, every single bit of the “minimal facts” aren’t facts at all but are presuppositions based on claims with no evidence. You were unable to refute a single point made about how the “minimal facts” completely fail.
I was a christian, Phillip, so christianity doesn’t “unsettle” me. And since christians have many many versions, which they can’t show as true, I am definitely not bothered by the threats and nonsense from your religion.
Not an echo chamber, just you failing in presenting your case that your religion is true. It’s nothing new that a christian will choose to lie to try to excuse his failure. Your god doesn’t like lies or liars.
Again:
“Jesus died by crucifixion (accepted by virtually all critical scholars, including skeptics like Bart Ehrman).”
Ehrman postulates a delusoinal jewish fellow as the core of the jesus myth. Christians do not worship a delusional jewish fellow. There is no evidence for either “historical jesus” or magic jesus.
“The disciples genuinely believed Jesus appeared to them alive after His death, transforming their behavior radically.”
No evidence for the disciples, and belief does not make anything true. Cults routinely change the behavior of their members.
“Paul, a persecutor of Christians, converted after claiming a personal encounter with the risen Jesus.”
Paul claimed to have had a vision, nothing more, and he contradicts himself when describing that vision. He also has no knowledge of Jesus’ speeches, the “empty tomb”, Paul repeatedly contradicts jesus, etc.
“Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.” Acts 9
“It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. 3 And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. 5 On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.” 2 Corinthians 12
“6 “While I was on my way and approaching Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ Then he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth[b] whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 I asked, ‘What am I to do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told everything that has been assigned to you to do.’ 11 Since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, those who were with me took my hand and led me to Damascus.” Acts 22
“12 “With this in mind, I was traveling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13 when at midday along the road, your Excellency,[c] I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew[d] language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’ 15 I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The Lord answered, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me[e] and to those in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’” Acts 26
“The empty tomb—while debated—is strongly supported by early sources and the absence of a plausible alternative explanation.”
Again, Paul never mentions an empty tomb, just that christ was “raised”. “3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ”
and if we look at the context of what paul writes, there is also this: “42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. ” 1 Corinthians 15
So the body is put into the earth, aka “sown”. And what is “raised” is not the body, but a “spiritual body”.
LikeLike
the gospel accounts are anonymous since we do not have any autographs of them, nor any evidence they were written by the apostles, since we have no evidence the apostles, or jesus, existed. The gospels repeatedly contradict each other, which does discredit them and there is no evidence that any of the events in them ever happened. So your claims of “testimonial, textual and circumstantial data” fail. No testimonies unti decades later. No textual data since the texts you claim as evidence were written decades later, and I’m not even sure what you think “circumstantial data” is.
Again, no “lazy skepticism”, just a complete lack of evidence on your part, Phillip. When you say early church history, that is decades if not hundreds of years after the supposed events. Tacitus mentins christians. He never sais what they believe is true. And any cult transforms lives.
You still have nothing. You also don’t have a “nuanced response”, only one that borrows from other failed apologists who still have no evidence.
I always enjoy when creationists try to divide evolution in to “macro” and “micro”, since the same mechanism is in effect. It is indeed christian slated spiel, since it is not rooted in scientific discourse. The change in stories by creationists is a great example of how science leads and religions follow. You can’t show your god exists nor can you show that evolution doesn’t happen.
The minimal facts claims by habermas et al are not facts at all. They are all presuppositions.
” 1) that Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; 3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; 4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion; 5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ; and 6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.”
1. No evdience that jesus christ existed at all and no evidence for any cruxifiction of a man/god.
2.you only have stories of these supposed “experiences”.
3. All cults transform lives, and that doesn’t show their claims to be true.
4. These stories were told decades after the supposed events, events which christians can’t agree upon when they happened.
5. No evidence of James, or Jesus, and no evidence of any conversion.
6. Paul has little to no knowledge of the stories about jesus christ, only having some vague idea that he died. He has no idea that women were the supposed first witnesses. He has no knowledge of the many parables. He repeatedly contradicts what the gospels claim Jesus said. Paul claims to have had a vision of jesus, that’s it and he can’t even keep his own origin story straigt.
here’s another set of these “facts”
That Jesus died by crucifixion
That Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea
That Jesus’s followers found his empty tomb
That early on in the development of Christianity, the followers of Jesus experienced something that caused them to zealously preach the resurrection
That belief in the resurrection started among people who would have been unlikely to accept it, including the apostles, who did not expect a resurrection, James the unbelieving brother of Jesus, and Paul the persecutor of early Christians.
No evidence of any Joseph of Arimathea. No tomb. No evidence that anything magical influenced ignorant humans. Nothing unlikely for people to accept ridiculous things. It’s always amusing when christians can’t agree if jesus told the apostles he would resurrect or not. No evidence of James, just stories, and paul can’t keep his own stories straight. As I noted above, he has little to no knowledge of this jesus.
No evidence of any tomb. Christians can’t even agree on where it is. Paul mentions no empty tomb or any joseph or arimathea. I will guess you will complain about arguments from silence but in a case where you have no evdience for your claims, they are quite strong. Paul’s letters are earlier than the gospels, so why is so much information missing?
Curious how Habermas et al try to claim how many “experts” agree with them and yet they can’t show names of these people. I’ve asked Habermas directly for those names and he refused. Supposedly these names will be in his new books, and unsuprisingly they aren’t there either.
You may find this of interest: https://www.gcrr.org/post/minimalfactsapologetics
an excerpt:
“What if I were to tell you that there are six facts about Jesus and the primitive Christian church that 90% of all critical scholars agree on, which prove Jesus bodily rose from the dead? According to apologist Gary Habermas, these “minimal facts” are:
Jesus died by crucifixion.
Jesus’ followers believed they saw Jesus alive after his death.
Jesus’ followers were transformed because of this resurrection belief and were even killed because of their resurrection faith.
Jesus’ followers preached that they believed Jesus had raised from the dead very soon after his death.
Jesus’ unbelieving brother, James, became a Christian after thinking he saw Jesus alive after his death.
The Apostle Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus, a persecutor of Christians) also became a Christian after thinking a bright blinding light was Jesus alive after his death.
here you have it! Proof that Jesus rose from the dead! So what’s wrong with minimal facts apologetics and its approach to the resurrection? Aside from the fact that all six “facts” could be true and Jesus still not have risen from the dead? Aside from the host of other issues that have been well documented over the years? Such as (to name only a few):
We know enough about human psychology that perfectly reasonable, natural causes explain each of the six “facts” with more probability than the highly improbable hypothesis of a supernatural resurrection.
A supernatural resurrection violates the Standard Model of Particle Physics and, therefore, has very low explanatory power.
A proper investigation into this supposedly miraculous event was never conducted and is impossible to do so now.
Postulating that the Christian God exists and was specifically the antecedent cause of a supernatural resurrection is guilty of ad hoc assumptions that appeal to a God-of-the-gaps approach to history.
The entire argument is circular because it presupposes a (specifically Christian) theistic worldview and then uses its premises to prove a theistic worldview.
The entire argument is a non sequitur, meaning its conclusion (Jesus bodily rose from the dead) does not logically follow from its six premises. These “minimal facts” require a huge argumentative leap to move from people thinking Jesus rose from the dead to proving that he actually did rise from the dead.
Being that Jesus’ earliest followers were mostly pre-scientific, uneducated, and superstitious idealogues, the entire argument appeals to irrelevant authorities who would not be considered experts in any of their metaphysical or temporal claims.
There is widespread disagreement among biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers, and historians as to what Jesus’ earliest followers actually believed they experienced when claiming Jesus rose from the dead.”
it goes on to show just how deceitful Habermas is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The discovery of the empty tomb by women is culturally significant. In 1st-century Jewish society, women’s testimony was not highly regarded. The inclusion of women as the primary witnesses strongly suggests authenticity; no one fabricating a story would choose this detail.”
Women were only limited as witnesses when it comes to legal proceedings. There is nothing about a legal proceeding here.
“Jewish authorities’ response to the empty tomb (Matthew 28:11-15) presumes it was empty, regardless of their explanation.”
No evidence the jewish authorities were aware of this jesus at all. Matthew has a lot of silliness in it.
“11 While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 After the priests[c] had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 telling them, “You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day.”
no evidence of this. And curious how the jewish authorities also missed this: “51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.” Matthew 27
LikeLike
Phillip, I do have a question. How does a Christian enjoy science fiction when your religion says there is no future to be had with the bizarre claims of “end times”? When I was a christian, I simply ignored the problem and then as time went on realized just how ridiculous the religion is with its 2000+ year failure on having its supposed predictions happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Phillip, I do have a question. How does a Christian enjoy science fiction when your religion says there is no future to be had with the bizarre claims of “end times”? When I was a christian, I simply ignored the problem and then as time went on realized just how ridiculous the religion is with its 2000+ year failure on having its supposed predictions happen.”
Your question is an interesting one, and I appreciate you asking. I want to make sure I understand where you’re coming from, so I’d like to ask for a bit of clarification before diving into a response. When you mention the “bizarre claims of ‘end times,’” are you referring to specific interpretations of apocalyptic scripture, like certain timelines or predictions, or do you mean the broader Christian belief in Christ’s return? Also, it sounds like you’re connecting the idea of the “end times” with the idea that Christians think there’s no future for humanity. Is that accurate? I ask because I wouldn’t want to misunderstand or misrepresent your perspective.
From my perspective as a Christian, the belief in the “end times” isn’t about the obliteration of the future or human creativity—it’s about a transformation. The Bible speaks of a “new heavens and new earth” (Revelation 21:1), which is a vision of a future where humanity’s relationship with God, creation, and each other is restored and perfected. This doesn’t signal the end of human purpose, but rather its fulfillment. Far from being static or dull, it’s a reality where humanity’s potential for creativity, exploration, and stewardship of creation reaches its true heights.
I think this ties into why I enjoy science fiction. Stories like those by Kevin J. Anderson and others often explore themes of human ingenuity, moral challenges, and the vastness of the universe. For me, these stories are deeply resonant because they echo the creativity and curiosity that God has gifted us. They reflect humanity’s desire to understand, create, and explore, which are qualities Christians believe will continue and be perfected in the new creation.
Some early Christian thinkers like St. Irenaeus and St. Basil the Great reflected on the idea that God’s ultimate plan is not to erase creation but to renew and perfect it. St. Irenaeus, for example, spoke of the future as a time when all of creation is restored in harmony with God’s will. This vision includes human flourishing, creativity, and purpose, not their end.
I think it’s also important to note that the “end times” concept doesn’t have to be understood through the lens of speculative predictions or apocalyptic timelines. For many Christians, it’s less about exact dates and more about living with hope and purpose, knowing that history is moving toward its fulfillment in God’s hands.
I’d love to hear more about your perspective, especially what you found troubling or strange about these ideas when you were a Christian.
LikeLike
I mean the bizarre claims of the end times e.g. Revelation, Daniel, etc all which promise JC’s return. They’ve failed for 2000+ years straight and Christians themselves can’t agree on how to interpret what they claim are prophecies. Premillenialists, post millenialists, preterists, amillenialists, who who are sure that the nonsense in revelation has already happened, that jesus has already returned, etc. It’s quite a mess.
Yep, christiansn claim no future for humanity, and they will be taken either to heaven, which their bible doesn’t say, or to the “city of heaven on earth”, a rather amusingly gaudy bit of nonsense.
I see you have your own interpretation, just like other Christians, and again, they don’t agree and not one Christian can show that their interpretation is the right one. You claim it is a “transformation” and it doesn’t seem you think that this is a literal one, but just a change in relationship. There is nothing saying that humans will advance at all. They remain utterly static in their obedience to this god. They have no thing to do being in this “city” that already exists, that there will be no free will, no eating, no drinking, no sex, etc. The “original relationship”, aka Eden, was this god wanting ignorant and amoral humans taking care of a “garden”. That’s it.
So no exploration, no science, nothing. Your god is completely missing from the Saga of Seven Suns, and it is missing from most optimistic science fiction. There is no god who made stars as little lights on a solid dome that can be knocked off. Your bible and religion are limited to an ignorant earth where this god threw a temper tantrum and cursed everything, including supposedly the entire universe, which was limited to this earth(or at best the solar system) back in the day.
Christians, has you have noted, don’t agree on what they want to claim, including saints and church “fathers”. It’s the end for many people per your religion, me and every one else who doesn’t agree with this religion are damned to eternal torture.
That you claim that the “end times” don’t have to be understood under prophecy or apocalypse. I know, again, you guys can’t agree at all on this stuff. This fulfillment is claimed to be full of misery and torture. Shame that humans can feel “hope” and “purpose” when they also believe that their fellow humans will be tortured for no better reason than not agreeing with them.
Oh dear, what I found troubling or strange? That could fill a book. The idea of hell is troubling and strange, vicious and sadistic. The nonsense of stars falling off the dome and hitting the earth is ridiculous. Your god needing to force people to work for satan so this god’s plan works is bizaare (Revelation 17). It’s even sillier when your god, after it kills all non-christians, it has to free satan to corrupt the Christians that are left. Must be disappointing to get that far and have your god throw you under the bus.
That doesn’t even begin to mention how peculiar it is for a god to fail in Eden, then spend supposedly thousands of years failing to fix its mistakes, and finally deciding on a human blood sacrifice by torture to give it a loophole in the rules *it* made.
LikeLike
I understand that there are a lot of interpretations around the “end times”—it’s true that Christians disagree on the specifics, like whether the events in Revelation are past, present, or future. But at the core of the Christian faith, we share a common hope: that Christ will return, bringing justice, restoration, and the fulfillment of all things. You’re right that there’s diversity in how we interpret the details of that return, but the core message—that God will redeem all of creation and restore humanity to its rightful place—is consistent across all Christian traditions.
It’s important to recognize that disagreement over interpretations doesn’t undermine the faith or disprove anything. Much of Christian doctrine, especially regarding the “end times,” involves mystery and symbolism. However, there are essential truths that all Christians hold: that Christ will return, there will be a resurrection of the dead, and there will be a new heaven and new earth. Disagreement over finer details doesn’t take away from these central promises.
You mentioned that the idea of heaven seems “static”—like a place where humanity is just “obedient” and has nothing to do. I completely understand how that could seem unappealing. But I think that’s a misunderstanding of what heaven is truly about. Christian theology teaches that the new heavens and new earth will be a transformed reality, where human beings will live in perfect relationship with God, each other, and the created world.
In this new world, we won’t be static; we will be fully alive, fully human, and fully capable of creativity, exploration, and growth. As the Church Fathers, like Father Josiah Trenham, teach, this new creation will allow humanity to experience a kind of fulfillment that we can’t even fully imagine in our current state. Our relationship with God will be perfect, and in that relationship, there will be no limit to our potential for discovery and wonder.
Heaven isn’t about endless obedience in a boring city; it’s about the ultimate flourishing of humanity, the way we were always meant to be. Humanity was created for purpose: to steward creation, explore the universe, and reflect God’s image in all our actions. In the new creation, this purpose will be fully realized. I imagine exploration, creativity, and even the scientific endeavors you enjoy in science fiction will be part of this transformed reality, as humans continue to grow and learn in a world restored by God.
You’re also assuming that, in heaven, there will be no free will or exploration. This is a bit of a misunderstanding of what it means to be in a right and perfect relationship with God. In heaven, our free will will be fully intact, but it will be perfectly aligned with our nature as humans created in God’s image. Instead of rebellion or selfishness, our desires will be in perfect harmony with God’s will. This is very different from a mechanical existence or static obedience; it’s a state of perfect freedom, fulfillment, and joy.
You mentioned that “heaven is missing from optimistic science fiction,” but I think this is precisely the kind of misunderstanding I’d love to clarify. Heaven, in Christian belief, is not an oppressive, boring existence. It’s the next stage in human flourishing, one where we are fully alive and able to do what we were made to do: create, explore, and grow.
I also see that you’re assuming there’s no possibility for this kind of exploration, creativity, or purpose in the future, because you don’t believe in God. I think this is a key part of where we differ. From a Christian standpoint, we believe that God created the universe and all the laws of nature, which allows for scientific discovery and exploration. Without God, there is no foundation for these things—no explanation for why the universe exists or why humans have the capacity for knowledge and creativity. It’s this very belief in a Creator that allows for a future filled with possibility and hope.
As C.S. Lewis wrote, hell is “locked from the inside”—those who reject the Creator choose to separate themselves from the very source of life, joy, hope, and love. It’s not that God condemns people arbitrarily, but rather that those who reject God’s invitation to life are, by their own choice, cutting themselves off from the source of all that is good. This is the tragedy of hell—not that God punishes people unnecessarily, but that they choose to separate themselves from God’s loving presence.
Lastly, you raised the issue of the sacrifice of Christ and why God would require such a thing. I know that’s a deeply difficult question, and it’s something that Christians have wrestled with for centuries. But the sacrifice of Christ wasn’t a “loophole” in God’s rules; it was a demonstration of God’s love and justice. Through Christ’s sacrifice, God took on the consequences of humanity’s sin in order to restore us to Himself. It’s a radical act of love, not a flaw in God’s plan.
I think part of the challenge here is that we’re working with different assumptions about the nature of God and reality. From a Christian standpoint, God is the source of all life, purpose, and meaning. That’s why I believe in a future filled with exploration, creativity, and growth. And I believe that this future is possible because God is at the center of it all.
LikeLike
Christians disagree on more than the specifics, Phillip. You all invent different versions insisting only yours is right and your attempts to claim that you really do agree is nonsense. Your god hates lies and liars, so who are the liars here?
Christians can’t agree on what redeeming will mean, or who is the “humanity” that will be saved. That is not consistent. Again, we have Christians who believe in a literal hell with demons and pitchforks, some who believe that hell is just “separation”, and some who claim that hell is just a means to train up those that denied this religion to get them in. So it is not consistent across all Christian traditions.
Disagreement over interpretation does undermine the faith and disproves that any of you has any claim to the one truth you each think you have. Every Christian claims to be the only one to be able to interpret the “mystery and symbolism”. You don’t’ agree on what christ will do when he returns, when he will return, or how he will return. Disagreement takes aways from all of those supposedly central promises. Your god is quite strict on what it wants from its followers. Per your bible, jesus prayed that Christians wouldn’t split, and strangely enough he/his father denied that prayer pretty resoundingly.
If heaven is perfect, then heaven is static. Christians, again, don’t agree on what heaven even is. Your idea of a “transformed reality” isn’t the same as another christian’s. Your idea of a perfect relationship isn’t the same as another Christians. As logic dictates, there can be only one right answer, or no right answers.
You can’t show that we aren’t fully alive now, Phillip. Per your religion, the only ones who will be alive and able to participate are Christians who have the right version. The rest are damned to eternal torture. So much for your heaven built on such nonsense. Trenham makes up what he wants, just like you and just like eveyr other Christian who disagrees with you. Curious how Trenham isn’t wht is usually called a “church father”, just one more regular old pastor/priest, orthodox Christianity in this case. Like all Christians, he attacks those he doesn’t agree with and can’t show that his version is any better than the next.
Per the bible, heaven is endless obedience in either heaven, or in the city of heaen on earth. Again, Christians can’t agree on what it is. This certainly doesn’t seem like any great exploration or artistic endeavor:
“After this I looked, and there in heaven a door stood open! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the spirit,[a] and there in heaven stood a throne, with one seated on the throne! 3 And the one seated there looks like jasper and carnelian, and around the throne is a rainbow that looks like an emerald. 4 Around the throne are twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones are twenty-four elders, dressed in white robes, with golden crowns on their heads. 5 Coming from the throne are flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and in front of the throne burn seven flaming torches, which are the seven spirits of God; 6 and in front of the throne there is something like a sea of glass, like crystal.
Around the throne, and on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: 7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with a face like a human face, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle. 8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and inside. Day and night without ceasing they sing,
“Holy, holy, holy,
the Lord God the Almighty,
who was and is and is to come.”
9 And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall before the one who is seated on the throne and worship the one who lives forever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne, singing,
11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.”
or this:
“No one could learn that song except the one hundred forty-four thousand who have been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; these follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been redeemed from humankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found; they are blameless.”
“9 After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. 10 They cried out in a loud voice, saying,
“Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
Or this
“0 And in the spirit[f] he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
or this
3 Nothing accursed will be found there any more. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants[c] will worship him; 4 they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 And there will be no more night; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.
You’ve made up the star trek universe as heaven and conveniently ignored what your bible says. No evidence humans were made for anything, and the ignorant people who made up this god had no idea of a “universe”.
No free will, and no exploration since there was no concept of either in your bible. You have defined what you think is the “right and perfect” relationship with your god. Like all thesits, you invent what you want. Most art is from rebellions, so where does that come in, Phillip? If there is free will, then there will be rebellion. Your claim that somehow everyone agrees with your god is rather silly considering how satan told your god to sod off.
I said your god is missing from optimistic science fiction. No one needs imaginary friends if life is good. Heaven, in your version, is not oppressive, boring, etc. That’s all you can state. No next stage at all. Just humans who worship a god, nothing more. Curious how the bible never says yu can do anything other than worship this god endlessly, singing pointlessly to stroke this being.
Funny how I known that there is possibility for exploration, creativity and purpose in the future, and I know that this will happen in spite of your religion and its failure. Yep, you and all theists believe some being you can’t show exists, created everything. No god is needed for the universe or its laws. Your arrogance and ignorance screw you up again. Hope exists without your god that requires human blood sacrifices by torture.
Yep, Lewis said that, and curious how he invented his own Christianity too. He has a heaven where humans forget those they love too, which is rather pathetic. Alas, your bible doesn’t agree with his claims, that it is the fault of the non-christian that they go to hell. Both jesus and paul say tht this god has already chosen who it will allow to accept it and then damns the rest for no action of their own. No free will at all. Christians do like to invent things to excuse just how disgusting their god is in their bible. Alas, for you, your bible has your god condemning people arbitrarily. I’ve read it so you can’t lie to me abouat what it actually says.
Happily, your god isn’t the source of “good” at all. Christians can’t even agree on what morals it wants or it has.
Nope, it isn’t a difficult question at all, Phillip, when it comes to the ridiculous sacrifice story your religion has. Christians don’t like what the story tells, a god that is no different from the other bronze age gods, that still needs sacrifices of blood to do things. This god could have simply said “hey, believe in me and we are good”. But no, it needs blood. Killing someone for my actions isn’t showing that you love me. That’s showing you are a complete idiot who is no more than an abusive parent. Your god made the consequences of “sin”, something else that Christians can’t agree on, so it could have done anything to change that or take that.
You are working with the assumption that your version of christanity is the right one. I am working with the fact that you can’t show that to be true. Most cults claim that their god is the source of life, purpose and meaning. And not one of you are correct. Again, your bible contradicts your star trek heaven.
LikeLike
Wow – what an exchange!
“The Fall” in this context is even more nonesnsical than it is just within the Middle East.
The “idea” that “god” having created a “perfect” universe with all the parameters just so, of 93 billion light-years in diameter (and that is only the extent we can see, which raises the question of why the invisibke, to us, part of the universe would be created at all) would decide to make it imperfect (?) after 1000 years (?) because one individual of one life form on one tiny planet on the edge of one average galaxy decided to eat one piece of fruit from one tree. The “creator of the universe” had nothing better to do?
In addition, the supposed “fine tuning” of the universe has the result of making 99.9999recurring% of that universe absolutely useless to humans, consisting of mostly space, dark energy, dark matter, black holes, supernova and so on. And the result of making this tiny insignificant planet at least 90% unfit for human habitation without the advanced technology that has only been available in the last 50 years or so.
“Fine tuning” advocates need to get a grip on reality.
LikeLike
exactly. The myth of “downfall” is common to humans and serves to try to explain why “bad things” happen. It’s an excuse offered to try to have some perfect being *and* explain why it does nothing.
Fine-tuning is an ignorant and arrogant fantasy.
LikeLike
Your comment touches on several significant objections to Christian theology and the fine-tuning argument. I’ll do my best to address each concern clearly and respectfully.
The Fall and the “Imperfect” Universe: You argue that the idea of the Fall is nonsensical and question why God, after creating a “perfect” universe, would make it imperfect because of one act of disobedience on one small planet. Let’s break this down.
The Nature of Perfection: Christian theology does not claim that the universe was created as an unchangeable, static “perfect machine.” Rather, the universe was created “good” (Genesis 1:31)—that is, in harmony with God’s purpose and free from moral or natural corruption. Human beings, as moral agents, were given free will to either align themselves with God’s will or reject it. Free will, by its nature, includes the possibility of moral failure.
The Fall, therefore, represents humanity’s misuse of this freedom, introducing sin and its consequences into creation. It’s not that God “decided to make it imperfect,” but rather that humanity’s rebellion disrupted the intended harmony of creation. The brokenness we see in the world today is not the result of God’s design but of human choice.
Why One Act Matters: You question how one act of disobedience could have such cosmic consequences. This concern overlooks the interconnectedness of creation in the Christian worldview. Humanity, as the steward of creation, was meant to reflect God’s order and goodness. When that relationship was fractured, it had ripple effects throughout creation, similar to how a virus in one part of a system can corrupt the whole. The significance lies not in the physical act of eating the fruit but in the willful rejection of God’s authority and trustworthiness.
The Scale of Creation: The scale of the universe—93 billion light-years in diameter—does not diminish the significance of human beings. The vastness of creation can be seen as a reflection of God’s majesty and power (Psalm 19:1: “The heavens declare the glory of God”). The argument that Earth is “insignificant” because of its size assumes that significance is tied to physical dimensions, which is not a view shared by Christianity. Human worth is rooted in being created in the image of God, not in occupying a large part of the universe.
You challenge the fine-tuning argument by pointing out that most of the universe is “useless” to humans and uninhabitable. Let’s address this.
Fine-Tuning Is About Initial Conditions, Not Human Usability: The fine-tuning argument does not claim that the entire universe must be habitable or directly usable by humans. Instead, it focuses on the precise physical constants and initial conditions of the universe that allow life to exist at all. For example:
These constants are astonishingly fine-tuned, and their values fall within an unimaginably narrow range that permits the existence of life. This fine-tuning is not negated by the fact that most of the universe is inhospitable; the argument is about the framework that makes life possible, not the extent of habitable real estate.
The Vastness of the Universe Has Purpose: The size and scope of the universe may seem excessive if viewed solely through the lens of human habitation. However, from a theological perspective, the universe’s vastness serves to reveal the greatness of its Creator. Moreover, the inhospitable regions of the universe—such as stars and galaxies—are not “useless.” Stars produce the elements necessary for life (e.g., carbon and oxygen), and their life cycles play a crucial role in sustaining cosmic processes that allow Earth to exist.
Technological Development and Human Survival: You note that much of Earth itself is uninhabitable without advanced technology. This observation does not undermine fine-tuning; it underscores humanity’s ability to adapt and thrive. The need for technology does not mean the planet is poorly designed; it simply highlights the challenges of living in a dynamic and diverse environment.
Getting a Grip on Reality: You urge advocates of fine-tuning to “get a grip on reality,” implying that the argument is detached from empirical evidence. In fact, the fine-tuning argument is grounded in scientific observation and mathematical analysis. Prominent physicists like Paul Davies, Luke Barnes, and even agnostic thinkers like Martin Rees have acknowledged the remarkable precision of the universe’s physical constants.
Critics often invoke multiverse theories to explain fine-tuning without invoking a designer. However, the multiverse hypothesis is purely speculative, lacking empirical support. Even if true, it would only push the question back: why does the multiverse itself exhibit laws that allow for fine-tuned universes?
The fine-tuning argument does not claim to prove God’s existence with absolute certainty, but it provides a strong inference to the best explanation. A designer offers a more coherent and parsimonious explanation than chance or speculative multiverses.
Your objections to the Fall and fine-tuning seem to stem from a misunderstanding of the theological and philosophical claims being made. The Fall is not about God arbitrarily punishing creation but about humanity’s moral failure and its consequences. Fine-tuning is not about making the universe entirely habitable but about the precise conditions that make life possible.
The Christian worldview provides a coherent explanation for the universe’s order, humanity’s moral agency, and the interplay between brokenness and hope. While these topics warrant ongoing discussion, dismissing them as “nonsensical” or “baseless” without engaging with their depth does a disservice to the conversation.
LikeLike
I’ll give my ponions on your response to David:
No evidence for any fall, or any god. The idea of the fall is indeed ridiculous, especially when this god curses everything for what two people did. Your god is notorious for bein incompetent at taking care of its problems, with killing animals etc when it took a tantrum and caused the flood.
Christians can’t agree on what perfection is either. The ontology argument shows that since they must be vague and claim “maximally great” which is meaningless. And since Christians can’t agree on what morals this god wants, you have no idea what is “corruption” and what is not. No free will per both jesus and paul, this god has already chosen it will allow to accept it and then damns the rest for no action of their own. Add that to where this god repeatedly interferes with humans and free will doesn’t exist per your bible.
No misuse, just an idiot god that wanted amoral humans, randomly put them in a garden with the magic fruit, and either couldn’t keep satan out or intentinally let satan in, not telling adam and eve.
You repeat a common baseless claim of Christians when they claim that their god simply had no choice but to curse everyone. No ripple effect has to happen, your god is omnipotent, right?
It isn’t an argument about how insignificant the earth is, it is that your god wastes so much, and if we are so important, do tellwhy this god managed to limit us to where we are, and there is so much else. As for being in the image of god, Christians can’t agree on what that even means either. To claim your god thinks humans have worth is shown false by your bible, considering how many times it commits and commands genocide.
The fine tuning argument does claim that the constants etc must be appropriate for humans. Nothing else. Christians make false claims when they try to say it’s only about “life”. No, your bible says it is only about humans and so have you. Again, we don’t know by how much off we can be. Anything about “fine tuning” is entirely hypothetical. These constants are what they are and nothing shows that some entity took them and adjusted them to get what it wants. That is simply false.
Unsurprisingly, you can’t show that the vastness of the universe has a purpose. It’s hilarious how your god now is a size queen. Your god being omnipotent doesn’t need stars, etc to make anything at all, so your attempt to invent a “reason” for why the universe is pointlessly huge fail.
Humans have done great things with developing technology, and your god has done nothing. Ideas for techonology come from humans, not your god and not just believers in your religion. The planet is not designed for us. If it were, then we would not need technology, it would be “eden”. If we are to take your myths seriously, us humans have defeated this god in its attempt to punish us by kicking us out of eden.
Fine tuning is not grounded in scientific observation. All that a few scientists have said is that it “seems” like things are fine-tuned, a completely baseless opinion, based on the presupposition that a god or something had to create the universe. These scientists have not “acknowleged” that fine tuning is true.
No need to invoke nonsense to explain fine tuning when it doesn’t even exist. No evidence any laws come from any god at all. Christains claim that the fine-tuning argument is evidence that their god, and only their god exists. And other theists do the same. You aren’t arguing for anyone else’s god. There is nothing coherent or parsimonius to assume somehow a god exists, can’t be able to explain why it exists, and then manages to create a universe that it fails in, being an utterly incompetent designer if it is trying to benefit one species. But do show how it is indeed more “coherent and parsimonius”. Christians often make these claims but can’t support them when asked.
No misunderstanding, Phillip. We know what Christians claim and how they can’t even agree on their creation myths. The fall is your god arbitrarily punishing humans for what two humans did, where it set them up for failure and being omniscient, knew they would fail and did nothing. And since you can’t show that adam and eve even existed, your religion is in trouble.
Again, no need for your god for order, morals, or hope. We aren’t broken. That’s what any cult tells their members so they feel they should join the cult. Christians have invented a sickness that doesn’t exist and try to sell the cure.
LikeLike
I can’t improve on the formal response below. So I’ll do a light-hearted one while trying to avoid being rude to Mr Mast (I am not a rude person).
His reply to me reads like a prose version of a play that was written by Lewis Carroll, or Frank Baum, or CS Lewis as they created totally imaginary universes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phillip has done a great job of making up his own christianity.
LikeLiked by 2 people