Why do you believe what you believe

[souloe]

hi, I've been requested to expand on my proofs that God exists. But its rather interesting cause I know that even if I have a million proofs that God exists, people can still not believe. By the way, the numbers corespond to my post in "what's wrong with gay" thread.

-//1. the existance of the universe //-

This is known as the Kalam argument. The premise of this argument is this:

I. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
II. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
III. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

The above is a site that has the Kalam argument.  

[souloe]

-//2 & 3 the scientific laws & complexity of universe//-

The existance of scientific laws and complexity of the universe and their complexity can either be explained by extremely unprobable chance or simply a designer: thus God.


Apologies but after I gave some thought to it I realized they were basically the same argument except in different viewpoint and thus I have combined the two. one analyzes the scientific views while the other analyzes the complexity beyond. For the comoplexity of the world to prove that God exists. I must:

1. prove that they are complex, powerful, ingenius and the likes
2. analyze the probabilty of it appearing by chance and if it is not by chance then we can conclude that someone must have done it: hence a designer.


Though it is common knowledge amongst scientists that the universe is extremely complex and powerful while haning on a delicate balance, I will still go through a few of the complex and powerful here while doing the balance part in the next argument. I will do it only for the sake of "providing evidence/support". I shall simply list out some stuff and describe some of their functions. If you want more details or why it is considered complex, by all means do more external readings.

examples

The gravitational constant. The force of gravity between any object is a law described by the mathematical forumla: Fg = Gm1m2/r^2. And within this formula G represents the gravitational constant. This constant is one of the many in this universe. If G was to be changed by even 0.000000001 then the universe would collapse. One reason that it will is becuase all orbits (thus planets, moons and the such) orbit around a body by centripedal force[its physics, I'm not going to explain though you can look it up] therefore, if the gravitational constant is changed by even 0.0000001 all orbits will fall out of place and create mass chaos. Similar effects will occur if you change ANY of the universal constants[corresponding their functions of course]

The chemical reactions. Some chemical reactions have the ability to go backwards from products back to the reactants. This scienfic law is also well known and is taught even in schools. Cellular respiration and photosynthesis is one such reaction. What the plants take in adn change into glucose we change back and use the energy. If the reaction was unable to reverse, then we could not possibly survive. Yet at the same time if all reactions could forward adn backward easily then we would also die because the chemicals in the air[essentially refering to the particals and components in air] would react and create an atmosphere that is not suitable for us to live in.

Law of friction. If friction did not exist, it would be impossible for us to even walk. Friction is a force that exist only to counter a pre-existing force. Ff = -uFn if you want to knwo the equation. If there was no friction then fish can not swim and meteorites would fall through the sky at a much higher rate than it is now. Our atmosphere has atmospheric friction which burns out most small meteorites as they pass through. Since meteorites are usually moving at such high speeds, if one was to fall onto the earth, they would cause a crator if not more damage [porportional to its speed and mass of course].

Law that binds electromagnetic waves and thus light. A small fraction of electromagnetic waves (at around 450-700Hz frequency) is what we can perceive as light. If light did nto have the reflection property then we would only be able to see sources of light and not the objects around us. We would live un utter darkness with the exception of looking up and seeing a blinding sun and stars at night. If light - since it has properties of a wave - moved only with properties of light and not matter then it would never reach us from the sun becuase space is a vacuum which is the absence of a medium[all waves need a medium to travel through...electromagnetic waves are exception]

DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid is the basic genetic coding that determines how each organism will be. The structure of the DNA is composed of long chains of base pairs known as adenine (abbreviated A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). A can only pair with T while C can only pair with G. It is the combination of these molecules that determines whether you have blue eyes or brown eyes, black hair or blond. Yet before we delve any deeper, you can already ask a question: How can 4 such molecules be the code that determines the attributes of my body? Indeed, if you were to study the actual making, working, and structure of the DNA you would realize that it is very unlikely that they came about on their own. Again, I apologize for not elaborating on the details of complexity but you can find out more should you decide to search deeper ie. external readings.

If you have not realized by now, these laws ALL benefit and contribute to the existance of mankind. If anyone of these were to be altered, humanity may cease to exist. These laws are powerful in that they have much more uses than what little I mentioned. In addition, the brilliance of having these laws in the right place and calibrated correctly that humans can live seems...a little improbable for it to be chance. The complexity of the laws and their placement and calibration are something that is well acknowledge.


What is the probability that all these scientific laws appeared by chance? First we must consider how the universe and its laws might have come about if we are going to look at it through the eyes of chance. How did the the universe come to be - if it did - ? How probable is it that these laws all contribute to the maintanence of the universe? If the universal constant that guides the structure of atoms were changed by 0.01 then all atoms in the universe would break apart, what are the chances that it is calibrated to exactly what it is now? What is the probability that these laws work together for maintanence of this universe? And what is the probability that these laws supports life on earth? If the earth was 5% closer to the sun humanity would end by the heat and if earth was 5% way mankind would cease by the coldness. How probable that we are just at the right place at the right time to be able to have life? Now if we think about it, which is more probable? All these coming together by chance, or someone who designed it all? [note: this is not proving that that someone exist but analyzing which is more probable: to have a designer or to have chance make all this]  

[souloe]

-//4. the fact that the universe is moving //-
This is called the prime mover argument. The things in the universe are moving and many scientist say they are moving outwards. The universe moving is a well knwon fact so I won't go into proving it. But the question now is "how come it is moving?". Acording to inertia moving body tends to stay moving while body at rest stays at rest. However, if the universe is moving then there must be something that started its movements. What or who was it? Random chance cause movement? You can try putting a piece of cardboard on the floor in your house. Do not let anyone or anything move it or touch it. Would it move after you leave it there for say...10 years? no it would not. You would need a netforce to move it. Thus someone or somthign must have started the univese and moved it.  

[souloe]

-//5. the existance of morality //-

The question here is either (a) there is a God or (b) there is no God.


There is a God.


Before we do anything, I would like to ask some questions. Does evil exist in the world? Is it okay to kill off all those who are weak and do nothing but leech off society? Is it wrong to rape an innocent little girl? If you answered yes or no to any of these questions you have demonstrated the existance of morality. You can not say somethign is good or evil unless you first know that there is something called good and something called evil. Even if you should deny its existance, society and the rest of the world acknowledges it.

Yet now that we have established that there is soemthing called "good" and something called "evil" we know that there is a standard that exist somewhere. If there isn't a standard, then who is to say killing off the useless people are wrong? Who is to say raping women is wrong? If you think about it, killing off all the "weak people" - those who doesn't benefit society - will free up resources for the rest of humanity. And if everyone continues to rape everyone then the human species will flourish with more reproduction. So what's wrong? Obviously there is something wrong with this picture.

You might say people have rights and by doing all that you violate their rights. Oh? And who gave them those rights? Do they intrinsically have something more than just another species of animals we can slaughter for food and use for experiments? [note: first world countries slaughter millions of animals every year for food and use other animals for experiments and such] If they intrinsically have something more, where did that something come from? Or better yet, what is it? If you say humans and animals are the same then what's wrong with the above picture? Or a better question may be "why is it wrong"?

There is a standard whether you acknowledge it or not. If you can say something is right or wrong, then you must have a standard that you use to make that statement. And standards are set. They are not there for no reason and made by no one. So who set the standards for morality? Humans? So for now lets imagine that is is. If it is, then my standard will be different from yours. If I say I can take your car becuase I think its right, obviously you are going to say that is wrong. So who's right? If you look in today's society you'd realize you don't need to argue. There are laws that says what is right adn what is wrong. So I ask you then. Does a society set the standard? If they do, then would it not be the same as my standard against yours? ie. one society's standards against another? If that's true, then who's right? If you look through history you would find similar standards spaning through time and space in different countries with different people. "Protect the weak", "Bravery", "integrity", "do to others as you would have them done to you" These are virtues that are highly regarded Regardless of where you are. Now, if we consider that fact, we realize something is very peculiar. A common standard spans through humanity. Why do we have similar standards. It has to be set by someone we know that, but who? If it was set by man, then what reason does another have to follow it? And why would different people's standards have similarities? Perhaps it is because this standard is made not by humans but by something/someone above us. If we say, the creator made the standard and wired it into all of us then it would make sense.  

[souloe]

-//6. the Bible[I can, of course, prove the Bible to be true] //-

The bible proves the existance of God.


To prove that the previous statement is true I must do two things:

1. prove that the Bible is true
2. prove that the Bible says that God is real[common knowledge...I won't expand unless requested to]

The Bible is constist of historical accounts and spiritual testimonies. If you can prove the historical account to be false then you can condemn the whole book to be invalid in terms of absolute truth. Thus I shall reinforce that the Bible to be true by the historical contents using these points:

1. Manuscript Evidence
2. Archeological Digs


Before I enter into details you must realize a few things.

-In Biblical times, the printing press (AD1456) did not exist.
-Most people could not even read.
-The individuals entrusted with the task of copying the scriptures were called scribes.
-The Jews are known to be a group of very religious nation adn only the most devout Jews were allowed to study this art and become a scribe.

In fact, their dedication was so severe that after each page of writing they would check letter by letter to see if they made a mistake. If they did they would throw it away and restart. In addition, every time they have to write the word God, they would ceremoniously wash their hands for 15 minutes. So if one sentence had the word God in it 10 times, they would go wash their hands 10 times. That is how devout and serious they were. And with that in mind, the possible error is extremely thin if any at all.

Quote:

<
Manuscripts are tools that can be used to determine the accuracy and validity of different texts. The longer the time between the date written(original) and the oldest manuscript(copy that we have) found, the more possible errors there could be in the text. As well, we know that if the text was written while there were still eyewitness alive then the eyewitness could refute the text's contents base on validity and accuracy.

Up to 1947, the most widely used copy of the O.T.(old testiment) is dated around 900AD and is known as the masoretic text. It is also in this same year that a startling archaeological discovery was made, containing O.T. documents dating back to 150BC. These came to be known as the dead sea scrolls. For the N.T., over 5500 manuscripts exist today, which scientists can use to rebuild the original gospels. The oldest existing fragment comes from John 18 and is dated around 98-110AD from Egypt. The significance of this date is that it is written within the lifetime of an eyewitness. Thus if there was ANY flaw, the eyewitness can stand up point and thus crush the text.

<<

Author/ Title/ Date written/ Manuscript date / number of copies
Mathew Mark Luke John/ Gospels of Jesus / 40-100AD/ 98-150AD/ 5500
Homer/ The Illiad/ 600BC/ 200-300AD/ 650
Aristotle/ Poetics/ 343BC/ 1000AD/ 5
Tacitus/ Anals of Imperial/ 116AD/ 850AD/ 1

Thus by these two points we know that the credibility and validity of the gospel alone is much stronger than that of "The Illiad", "Poetics", "Anals of Imperial". From looking at these books alone (you can go find more if you wish) we know that there is no other ancient text that has the same degree of manuscript evidence as the New Testament. In addition, by understanding the care taken by the scribes - out of reverence for the holy words they were writing - we know the copies are highly accurate.

Quote:

<
Archeological finds can not by itself prove that the bible is correct but it can reinforce its validity. To the present day there are over 25000 archaeological sites that confirms the Bible [now how many confirms evolution again?]. Contrary to popular belief, dating of the artifacts found is NOT solely done by radioactive decay. Most scientists do not believe that this technique is accurate. So if that's the case, how are artifacts dated? Most are dated using the technique of extrapolation. Accurate timelines can be drawn out by comparing multiple sources and using simple deduction. Pottery style, inscriptions, and royal or family tree provide a wealth of information that can accurately date new discoveries.

<<(you can research on these if you like)
-The construction of Hazzor, Megiddo, and Gezer by Solomon [1 Ki 9:15]
-Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon [Daniel 5]
-Lysanias, Tetriarch of Abilene (AD 27) [Luke 3:1]
Pool of Bethesda [John 5:1-5]
Jacob's well [John 4:12]

 

[souloe]

-//7. Jesus Christ[I can, of course, prove Jesus Christ to be true] //-To prove Jesus Christ to be true I must do two things:

1. Prove the historical person jesus to be a real person and
2. Prove that he is who He says He is


The historical person Jesus exists and is not an issue. He has already been proven to exist by multiple sources of text and manuscripts. These corroborative, or supporting evidence is abundantly found. Many non-Christian writers published works that verify events found in the Bible.

1. Josephus: A Jewish Pharisee that surrendered to the Romans during the JewishRoman War of AD 66-74. He wrote three critical works of antiquity which verified the details of the lives of Jesus James the brother of Jesus and John the Baptist.
2. Tacitus: A Roman historian from the first century, perhaps the most important of his day. Through his writing we verify that a religious movement started, based on a crucified man.
3. Pliny the younger: Governor of Bithynia. His lettters to Emperor Trajan verify the rapid spread of Christianity to all social circles. People worshipped Jesus as a God, had high ethical standards, and weere not easily swayed from their beliefs.
4. The Talmud: A Jewish work of Antiquity written in AD 500 chronicling their history. From this account, we learn that Jesus was a "False messiah" who practiced magic and was justly condemed to death. It also repeats the rumour that Jesus was born to a roman soldier and Mary.
5. The Great Eclipse: In AD 33 several sources indicate that the greatest eclipse in the known world occured at around noon

In a historical analytic point of view, we know that people are biased and their works may be biased as well. however, if we look at the underlining statement, we can tell that the person Jesus did exist - by the above texts and more. There is no doubt that the historic person Jesus existed not only in my mind but also in many philosophers, others and even people who tried to refute Christianity.


Is Jesus Christ truely who He says He is? ie. the son of God? How do we go about proving that someone is God? I will attempt to use logic and deduction to back these claims.

Quote:

<
Since we have already proven the validity of the Bible in the previous argument I wont' go into details. The biographies of Jesus Christ, commonly known as the Gospels, were written by four eyewitnesses to the life adn ressurrection of Christ: Mathew (Levi) a tax collector, Mark (John Mark) companion of Simon Peter, Luke a trusted physician of Paul, John son of Zebidee. The contents indeed states that Jesus is the son of God so the remainin question is "can these accounts be trusted?" "Are they valid?" There are a few questions that have been asked regarding the validity of these eyewitness(since the manuscripts that we have has already been proven to be extremely accurate to the original writings from the previous argument)

1. Since the authors of the Gospels were trying to convert people to their faith, aren't their writings biased?

Some people do colour and twist their documentation of history, but it is wrong to assume that all historians do. In ancient times, books/papyrus/parchments were very rare. Scholars only wrote things down if there was something to learn from it. Ancient history can be accurately reconstructed from other thological works, so we should be able to do this from the Gospels as well. For Christians, they wanted to document a significant event: God on earth and salvation for all men. Therefore they would want to record things as accurately as possible to promote this ideology.

2. Since the Gospels were not written immediately after Jesus' death wouldn' tthye be subject to legendary fabrication?

The manuscript evidence can be the answer for this question. The most common dates assigned to the Gospels are: Mark at AD70, Mathew and Luke at AD80 and John at AD90. This is significant, because this dating easily falls within the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could have been used by the Romans/Jews to disprove Christianity. If we were to look at other examples of antiquity we would find that Alexander the Great died in 323BC and the first biographies were written over 400 years later by Plutarch adn Arrian.
*side note* these are two different accounts that describe two different journeys of Alexander the Great to invade rome.

3. Did the authors of the Gospels have selfish motives to write the biographies, or leave out embarrassing things that jesus did in his lifetime?

This possibility always exists, BUT we must also note that an author's love adn reverence for someone can also push them to be as truthful as possible It is very likely that the four Gospel authors recorded the life of Jesus with great integrity to honor his life. The authors also included many hard saying in their biographies. Eg Mark 6:5 or Mt 5:28. If the authors left this "hard to explain" material in their writings, why would they fabricate materials that are without any historical basis to make Jesus look better?

Quote:

<
The Talmud is a Jewish work of Antiquity written in AD 500 chronicling their history. From this account, we learn that Jesus was a "False messiah" who practiced magic and was justly condemed to death. Yet if we remove the bias screen we know that Jesus did do something supernatural. If not, the text has no reason to say that he practiced magic. It would say "he was an ordinary man to made blasphemous claims". Thus from a source that tries to refute Jesus we find proof that supports him. As for why this is a piece meant for against Jesus, one could look at the different historical accounts and realize that both the Jews and the Romans persecuted Christians. It was only later that Romans made Christianity its official religion.

Quote:

<
As proven earlier, the historical existence of a man named Jesus is not in doubt. His presence on Earth is, without question, the most influencial event in human history. Jesus is unique amongst the founders of the major world religions. He alone claimed that He is God. So is he really God? The radical claims of jesus Christ, and the proof of his existence lead to only four possibilities which explain his biography:

1. Jesus was a liar.
2. Jesus was a lunatic
3. Jesus was a legend
4. Jesus was the Lord (telling the truth)

<<
The first possibility is that he deliberately deceived his listeners and followers in order to add credibility to himself adn his teachings. Oddly enough, many of these same critics also ascribed Jesus to be "a great moral teacher" These two views are in direct contradiction to one another. Critics must also explain his trial and crucifiction. If he was lying, would he go so far as to die such a horrific death as crucifiction and still hold on to what he know as a lie? The depth of Jesus' words clearly indicate that He truely believed that He was the Son of God.

<<
This possibility implies that Jesus truely believed he was the son of God, but that in reality, he was delusional. To this day, there is no evidenec to support that Jesus was mentally instable, delusional, imbalanced, or psychologically abnormal. Instead, all evidence we have leads to a sane and rational teacher. Jesus exhibited tremendous composure under pressure! (Mark 14:55-62, 15:1-5) Also, we knwo that the Gospel writers recorded the events of Jesus' life with great accuracy. With the writing dates of the Gospels confirmed, we know that any delusional fits would have been remembered by the people of the day.

<<
This possibility implies that either Jesus' abilities were "made up" or that many of his claims were added at a later time. We have already seen that this possibility has no credibility whatsoever. The accuracy dating of th eGospel writings all but elimate the possibility of legendary exaggeration. The time frame is too short. Also, th edeaths of the Apostles must be explained by supporters of this possibility. People don't normally die for a lie. Especially when there are numerous amounts of people who died such a death.

<<
Jesus dared others to call his bluff!! Claims don't amount to much without evidence to back them up (John 10:3 cool Jesus backed up his claims with this evidence:

1. His moral character coincided wtih his claims.
2. Although tempted, Jesus never confessed to sin
3. His followers believed adn confessed his sinless character.
4. His demonstrated power over natural forces
5. His ability to heal the sick.
6. His ressurection from the dead
7. We can experience Jesus today

So what is the probably that Jesus was telling the truth? You tell me.

Quote:

<
Christianity is unique among world religions, in that it is unequalled in the area of fulfilled prophecy. In the OT days people tested a prophet by waiting to see if what he says came true. If it did not, they would stone the man. Examples of OT Predictive Prophecy

-Nation of Israel Destroyed - Hosea 9:17
-Destruction of Tyre - Exekial 26
-Restoration of Israel (194 cool - Jer 31

The greatest and most intricate of the OT prophecies was the coming of the Jewish Messiah: There were 60 Major Messianic Prophecies and 270 Ramifications. Why so many prophecies one might ask, becuase someone as important as the messiah must not have mistakes in being identified. One of the reason so many prophecies exists is so that they can rule out the imposters and know the true Messiah.

<<
The Christ (Messiah) will
1. Be born of a woman (Gen 3:15)
2. He will be born of a virgin (Isa 7:14)
3. He will be the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3)
4. He will be in the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10)
5. He will be of the house of David (2Sam 7:12)
6. His birthplace will be Bethlehem (Mic 5:2)
7. He will be anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isa 11:2)
8. He will be heraled by a messenger of God (Isa 40:3)
9. He will perform miracles (Isa 35:5-6)
10. He will cleanse the temple (Mal 3:1)
11. He will be rejected by His own people (Ps 118:2)
12. He will die a humiliating death involving:
Rejection by Israel (Isa 53:3)
Silence before his accusers (Isa 53:7)
Humiliation - being mocked (Ps 22:7- cool
Piercing of his hands and feet (Ps 22:16)
Being crucified with thieves (Isa 53:12)
Praying for his persecutors (Isa 53:12)
Piercing His side (Zech 12:10)
Burial in a rich man's tomb (Isa 53:9)
Casting lots for His garments (Ps 22:1 cool
13. He will rise from the dead (Ps 16:10)
14. He will ascend into heaven (Ps 16:10)
15. He will sit at the right hand of God (Ps 110:1)

We know that these OT prophecies are fullfilled in the NT(new testiment) text. And we have proven the NT accuracy thus we know that Jesus did fulfill these prophecies. But are there other explaination?

<<
Could these all be fulfilled by cooincidence? Almost impossible for this to be so. The probability of 8 prophecies being true is 1:100000000000000000. The probabiltiy of 48 prophecies to be true is 1:1*10^56. The estimated number of atoms in our universe is 1*10^-57. [probabilites calculated by Peter W. Stoner & R.C. Newman]

<<
Once again highly unlikely, because: Integrity of authors, eyewitness accounts, authors martyred

<<
Perhaps Jesus purposely decided that he wanted to be Christ and fulfilled the prophecies by himself? This may seem plausible at first but is virtually impossible because many prophecies are out of human control and the timing of Christ's birth is a key factor also.

<<
This arguments assumes that prophetic text is taken out of context. Most scholarship today refutes this argument because the texts have been checked for over 2000 years. Today, no one can say that there is not enough info.

<<
If th eevidence is so overwhelming, why don't more Jews believe that the Messiah has already come?1. many Jews don't read prophetic text
2. many Jews are taught that Christians are anti-semetic
3. many Jews are afraid of cultural repercussions

For non-believers, there is an even greater challenge: Many people are afraid to change their lives. The evidence are laid out but whether you will believe or not is still your choice. If you refuse to believe then even if God was to speak to you from the heavens and you could still not believe.

Quote:

<
Of course, one of the more important claims that need to be proved is the ressurection. If indeed Jesus Christ ressurected from the dead then he has surpassed life and death. Paul sums up the significance of the resurrection in 1Cor 15:17 saying that if Christ hadn't been raised our faith is futile. If true, it is the most sensational event in all of recorded human history, and answers these questions:

1. who we are
2. where do we come from
3. what are we here for
4. where are we going in the future.

We would know beyond any doubt that God exist and that He cares for each individual. If the resurrection is not true, then:

1. Every single Christian martyr died in vain
2. None of us have any validation for our faith
3. all missionaries are wasting time.

To rationally explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ two things must be explained. The first is the existence of the empty tomb. Many theories have arisen over the centuries to explain Jesus' missiing body:

Disciples stole his body
This is highly unlikely to the point of almost impossible. This is totally against the character of the disciples as we know it. Not only that but if they participated in a deliberate lie, they should not logically die for it. Many of the apostles were tortured immensely and died a martyr's death with John as the only exception. Some were executed on display, others were even hung on an upside down cross [more details can be found through research.] People don't go that far for a deliberate lie.

The authority moved the body
If indeed either the Jews or the Romans removed the body then all they need to do to destroy Christianity is to reproduce the body. From history we know that the Jews and the Romans persecuted the Christians. So what logical reasoning is there that they did not reproduce the body? They did not have the body to begin with.

The wrong tomb theory
Any of the Jewish high priests could have walked into the right tomb and said "look, here is your lord. he is laying dead. No resurrection." As well how did all of Jesus' other followers make the same mistake? If anything the field's owner coul dhave sorted out the mess. Also note that Jesus' burial ground was private. No other tombs were nearby.

The swoon theory
One of the more recent theory proposes that Christ did not die when he was removed from the cross. Instead, he either fainted or was drugged. Looking at exactly what happened to Jesus on His last day:

1. At Gethsemane, the sweating of blood, or a phenomenon we now classify as Hematidrosis
2. After the trial, a Roman flogging[note: its cruelty includes multiple strands bound to sharpnels and metal pieces for one whip. They would slash the victim 39 times as definition of one flog. Often skin and muscles were riped so much that one can see the white bones beneath.]
3. Jesus survives and experiences hypovolemic shock
4. Rapid heartrates leads to pericardial and pleural effusion
5. A crown of thorns is forced into Jesus' scalp
6. Jesus is nailed to the cross and dies of asphyxiation
7. Jesus is speared through the lung and heart.

even IF Jesus Did survive... Although medically impossible, even if Jesus did survive and was not dead when he was buried, skeptics would still need to explain the following:

1. Jesus was wrapped in 75lb of spice laden grave-clothes
2. Jesus had to push away the tombstone
3. Jesus had to overpower roman centurians
4. Jesus had to walk on spike pierced feet
5. Jesus had to present himself as a glorious and majestic God to his cowering disciples
6. Jesus had to be part of a Flagrant lie

The second half of the Resurrection defense centers around the fact that hundreds of people are recorded to have seen Christ alive after the Crucifixion. If Christ did indeed die on the cross, and people later saw him alive, some supernatural event must have taken place. Why? Because, in the words of Dr. Gary Habermas: "Dead people don't go around doing that". One might say that perhaps it is a psycological illusion? That is highly unlikely becuase those events are highly personal and can not possibly be identical amongst hundreds of people.

Thus we have reason to believe that the historical Jesus as a man existed adn that He is the son of God that he claimed himself to be.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Your arguments are, while compelling in their own sense, take many assumptions based on your past arguments, and none really stand on their own. Jesus is proved to have existed because the Bible is claimed to be true, which is true because people were devout and made few mistakes because of the truth of morality, etc.

I will be back to counterpoint later on in the day.  

[AgentPingoX69Oo]

I'm really torn with my beliefs. In my heart I feel that there is a spiritual presence but I get confused with people who promote it. I don't want to think I believe in God because I hear other people who believe it, and I don't want to believe the bible because it was written by man and I don't trust man. It's been written and rewritten so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if it was all complete bullshit.
It's just a hard one because I seriously don't know and the religions out there only confuse me more!!! There are so many different views on God even in the same religion!! Take Christianity for instance. Some of them are against gay marriage and find them evil, others welcome them as their own and are for gay marriage. Some of them want to bring Christianity into politics and school and yet others believe that it should be something kept within the Christian community and in their own homes. Some believe that our main purpose is to protect God's earth and others think that the people were meant to come first. All of these beliefs come from what they've interpretted in the bible, the very bible that EVERYONE reads.
The bible is very evasive about many things and incredibly contradictory in many places.

This is all why it's so hard to decide!! I mean freaking a, wouldn't that confuse you?!?  

[Mutuso]

It's good to question your faith and your church, just so long as you do it respectively. Simply saying, 'this is dumb' (to put it politlely) is just showing how dumb you are.

Also I don't believe that if you don't believe that you should go about trying to unprove a religon, regardless of the situation. I know this is hard to do, especially when you see people dying in the masses for it.  

[Mutuso]

AgentPingoX69Oo

I'm really torn with my beliefs. In my heart I feel that there is a spiritual presence but I get confused with people who promote it. I don't want to think I believe in God because I hear other people who believe it, and I don't want to believe the bible because it was written by man and I don't trust man. It's been written and rewritten so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if it was all complete bullshit.
It's just a hard one because I seriously don't know and the religions out there only confuse me more!!! There are so many different views on God even in the same religion!! Take Christianity for instance. Some of them are against gay marriage and find them evil, others welcome them as their own and are for gay marriage. Some of them want to bring Christianity into politics and school and yet others believe that it should be something kept within the Christian community and in their own homes. Some believe that our main purpose is to protect God's earth and others think that the people were meant to come first. All of these beliefs come from what they've interpretted in the bible, the very bible that EVERYONE reads.
The bible is very evasive about many things and incredibly contradictory in many places.

This is all why it's so hard to decide!! I mean freaking a, wouldn't that confuse you?!?

I concure, this is why it's good to question all things.  

[Vanimiel]

As for me, I am a Druid (though I love the idea of both a god and goddess, as in Wicca). I don't think I really believe in specific deities at all, though. The idea has always seemed ridiculous to me. I choose instead to take the many gods and goddesses out there (though not all Druids believe in them, as we're pretty free of any strict set of beliefs) and I take them as names for the different way the world around one feels in any given season.
In the words of Frank Lloyd Wright: "I believe in God, only I spell it N-A-T-U-R-E."  

[Hiitachin Kaoru]

I was raised Catholic, but it really doesn't mean anything to me. I went to church every week, went to sunday school, until a few years ago.
I realized that the whole thing means absolutely nothing to me. I never felt anything special. Going to church was just a random extremely boring thing I did on weekends. I don't really believe in God at all.
I envy people who do, but I just can't.
I guess I really just don't beleive in anything.  

[GrimBurger]

Im not really sure what to believe in. I do believe there is some kind of god out there and that we must act morally because I believe there is some sort of heaven. Do all religions require regular prayer and practice?? What am I if I just believe and act morally yet am not devoted to a specific religion? and if there is some sort of hell am I in danger because I am not devoted?? @_@  

[Orgasmic Cheeto]

Hmm.. Well I sometimes believe in him but I sometimes dont. My mother is buddist and my dad is.. well.. a couch patato ^^ So I sometimes pray to Buddas and when im in a Poop load of trouble I pray to God. sweatdrop