re: Amazon Prime new cartoon retells the creation story

quote:

---

Perhaps the weakest response to evidence of God’s existence is ignoring it: claiming “there is no evidence.” Closely related is the suggestion that a skeptic finds the evidence uncompelling. This kind of claim often comes with an ever-shifting threshold for proof.

---

PS,
If you cast off your blinders and presuppositions and biases, I think you’ll find that there is no verifiable evidence of any god. If it was verifiable, then no faith would be required for believe and everyone would believe it.

“God of the gaps” arguments like “well what made the Big Bang go bang?” and “well scientists still haven’t figured out how life started” is just not evidence of a god. “We don’t know - therefore it must be the Christian God who done it!”

Circular logic (aka Foomanchoo logic) such as the Bible is the Truth, and we know that because that’s what the Bible says, is also not evidence of the Christian God.

quote:

---

Red herring. No one is trying to prove the existence of any of these.

---

You brought up the inability to disprove God. (Presumably as “evidence” of Go’a existence maybe?). I thought it would be relevant to point out you also can’t disprove the existence of the other gods of other religions.

quote:

---

I’m still waiting for your most compelling argument(s) against the existence of God. I’m still waiting for your “evidence” that God does not exist. We really should focus on that first.

---

Positive assertions require positive evidence of the one making the assertion. I don’t have to disprove your God and I won’t try because it’s impossible to disprove an imaginary idea. I can make the assertion that your God does not exist and that I don’t believe in the fairy tales, but I’m not the one with the burden of proof.

I think you and others sometimes confuse me poking holes in the Bible with trying to disprove your God or any supernatural being. I can only demonstrate that what the Bible says about natural things is inconsistent with reality. For instance, you very well could have a god, while what the Bible says about “him” could still all be incorrect.

quote:

---

That is a bold claim- with no evidence to support it.

---

Let’s start at Genesis 1. Can we at least agree that there is no glasslike round vault - a firmament - in the sky holding back the waters of chaos above the heavens?

quote:

---

Yet another bold claim- with no evidence to support it.

---

“Who wrote the Bible” by Richard Elliott Friedman

quote:

---

Evidence? I see a pattern here

---

There are scholarly works. I’m not writing a book for you.

quote:

---

Genetic fallacy. Please list these falsehoods.

---

We’ve gone over these already. You admitted that it’s not accurate or true on the subject of God storing his lightning bolts and hail in the storehouses of heaven. Rain doesn’t come through windows in the firmament. The sun, stars, and moon aren’t underneath the firmament, and the stars can’t fall out of the sky. The earth isn’t flat. You can’t make stripped goats by having the mating pair of goats looked at a stripped textile pattern.

quote:

---

Conversely, the proponents of Christianity that have led you to this same conclusion, have only done so through their failure ( intentional or not) to understand and put into practice the most basic principles of the teachings of Christ

---

Well to be honest it is the opposite for Christianity. I grew up in the Catholic Church and I generally like those people, save for the priests screwing the altar boys. It’s not because of the people in the group but my study of the subject matter that has led me to conclude the claims of that religion are false.

I’d invite you to listen to Dr Ehrman. What he states in here is not even about the scientific errors in the Bible but only about contradictions that cannot be reconciled, and it is limited to only our four canonical gospels.
Are the gospels historically reliable?
I’d love to hear what you think about it.

Squirelmeister

The scripture speaks of people like you, “the Gospel, the cross is foolishness to you but for us being saved by it, it is the power of God!”


Since you’re blind to the truth of the Gospel, it doesn’t surprise me that you aggressively oppose it. It’s offensive to you because it confronts sin, righteousness and judgment to come. And if you die in your sins and have to pay the price yourself, you’ll wish you could have an opportunity to repent and believe one more time. But the choice is yours. Reject and receive the due penalty for your sin (Hell) or believe the Gospel and be saved from your rebellion against God.

quote:

---

I like the lord of the rings analogy but have you read Romans 9:18? In light of Romans 9:18, WHO exactly has hijacked, tortured, and put to unholy purposes by heartening my heart and blinding me to the Truth with a capital T?

---

I’m just quick enough to appreciate Truth with a capital T.
Seriously however, let’s pray and hope for the best you’re not in Pharaoh’s or Esau’s class and destined to be made an example of. Sauron beguiled and seduced with lies and half truths appealing to the peculiar weaknesses and lusts of Elves, Dwarves, and Men. Your enemy operates similarly. “Yeah, hath God really said…?”

quote:

---

Christians who denied the gospels but accepted Paul’s gospel and denied Jesus was ever a human on earth.

---

Yeah, Christians who denied the gospels are like Grapenuts cereal, neither grapes nor nuts.

quote:

---

who denied the gospels but accepted Paul’s gospel and denied Jesus was ever a human on earth.

---

When you refer to Paul’s gospel I’m assuming you’re referring to his epistles.
Without reasonable doubt, 1st Corinthians is written by Paul from Ephesus to Corinth between 54 AD and 57 AD, probably late 55 AD/early 56 AD. In it he not only stated specifically his gospel, but is restating it, reminding the Corinthians of what he’d taught them two to three years before.

quote:

---

Now I would remind you, brothers,of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared
to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James,
then to all the apostles.
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (These are physical, bodily appearances of Jesus, to flesh and blood men, on earth. We can’t ascribe Jesus’s appearance to Paul as some sort of ethereal manifestation or trance or vision because he is comparing his to the previously mentioned bodily appearances of Jesus. No different nor any better than others but also a validation of his office of an Apostle.
For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God.
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace towards me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed
(Who is he comparing himself to and claiming his gospel and theirs are the same? He’s met with Disciples and Apostles, some of whom wrote gospels ie Luke. It’s not supportable that he is preaching something different from the Apostles that is different from the gospels in any meaningful sense).

---

That Paul’s gospel is different from the preaching and teaching of the other Apostles and differing in idea and substance from the gospels is very difficult to imagine much less find convincing support for the idea.

quote:

---

Since you’re blind to the truth of the Gospel,

---

Romans 9:18

quote:

---

It’s offensive to you because it confronts sin, righteousness and judgment to come.

---

You couldn’t be more wrong. It is not offensive to me, and the evidence is that I have studied it and like to discuss it and continue to study it.

I don’t believe it, but it’s not because it confronts sin and speaks of judgement. Use your head. I don’t believe in it not because “I just want to sin” (heard that idiotic argument many times) but because there’s no truth to it. If I don’t believe in the subject matter, why would I be concerned about sin and judgement if it won’t affect me? Your argument makes no logical sense.

Good evening, my friend. I hope you have had a great weekend. In the words of the famous modern philosopher, Tupac Shakur- I ain’t mad atcha.

quote:

---

If you cast off your blinders and presuppositions and biases

---

Excellent point, my friend. Would only add that this applies to both of us equally- yet in diametrical opposition. So far, it seems as though you are either unwilling to admit your biases, or simply unaware. Either makes sense of your position in the biblical worldview.

quote:

---

I think you’ll find that there is no verifiable evidence of any god. If it was verifiable, then no faith would be required for believe and everyone would believe it.

---

Again, I agree. I would only add, that it is a feature- not a bug. Can you force someone to love you? Essentially, for God to remove even the possibility of doubt- he would have to remove our free will- which is the only thing that adds value to our decision to accept Jesus Christ as our savior; or culpability to our free will decision to reject Him.

quote:

---

God of the gaps” arguments like “well what made the Big Bang go bang?” and “well scientists still haven’t figured out how life started” is just not evidence of a god. “We don’t know - therefore it must be the Christian God who done it!”

---

You and I seem to have so much more in common than we do not. Yet again, we agree. God of the gaps arguments should never be the end of the search for truth. The gaps absolutely need to be filled in. I think God Himself shakes his head in disappointment when we say “the science is settled- God did it. Next.” No- how did He do it? Why? These are the questions that I believe He is glorified in our search for, and more so in or attainment of, the answers. After all, science exists because we believed that God created a world that could be fully understood.

quote:

---

Foomanchoo

---

Man I miss my dawg! Say what you will, but that man is one of the most biblically literate posters on this board. I imagine that he has “shaken the dust off his feet” in regards to you. There comes a point when all that can be said- has been said. I disagree with nothing (that I know of) he has said to you.

quote:

---

You brought up the inability to disprove God. (Presumably as “evidence” of Go’a existence maybe?). I thought it would be relevant to point out you also can’t disprove the existence of the other gods of other religions.

---

I can see how you would think that. But, no. I brought that up because- apples and oranges. Billions of people believe in God. No one believes in the FSM. More interestingly, many people used to believe in those other “gods.” No one does now. No offense, but to even compare them to the Christian God is a very weak argument. You’re clearly better than that.

quote:

---

Positive assertions require positive evidence of the one making the assertion. I don’t have to disprove your God and I won’t try because it’s impossible to disprove an imaginary idea..

---

How convenient (and intellectually dishonest) for your position. Read your quote again, and tell me how it is not self-contradictory. Let’s evaluate:

quote:

---

Positive assertions require positive evidence of the one making the assertion

---

In the same breath:

quote:

---

I can make the assertion that your God does not exist and that I don’t believe in the fairy tales, but I’m not the one with the burden of proof

---

As a quick aside: Your inclusion of “fairytales” (that no one is positing a truth claim for) in this statement is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, thereby showing the weakness of your argument. Moving on. Do you not see that you are claiming that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim- while making a positive claim without evidence? This is exactly why your go to of “claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is, in fact, circular reasoning. I think you have better weapons at your disposal.

quote:

---

I think you and others sometimes confuse me poking holes in the Bible with trying to disprove your God or any supernatural being

---

Well, you are a self-proclaimed atheist (who ironically argues for Gnosticism ). If you were to take a position of an agnostic, I would imagine that those who engage you would alter their approach.

quote:

---

I can only demonstrate that what the Bible says about natural things is inconsistent with reality.

---

I disagree. What you can do, is present discrepancies between modern understanding and the context of ancient history. Bravo! I would argue that, much in the same way that God expects us to do science- He also expects us to do history and theology- starting with Him as our hypothesis.

quote:

---

Let’s start at Genesis 1. Can we at least agree that there is no glasslike round vault - a firmament - in the sky holding back the waters of chaos above the heavens?

---

Bruh- you’re gonna love this:
Apparently, there is.
We’ve known for a long time that there is water in space. But an international team of scientists has found a cloud of water vapor 12 billion light-years away – and it’s bigger than you could possibly imagine.
You Will Not Believe How Much Water Has Been Found Floating in Space

quote:

---

We’ve gone over these already. You admitted that it’s not accurate or true on the subject of God storing his lightning bolts and hail in the storehouses of heaven. Rain doesn’t come through windows in the firmament. The sun, stars, and moon aren’t underneath the firmament, and the stars can’t fall out of the sky. The earth isn’t flat. You can’t make stripped goats by having the mating pair of goats looked at a stripped textile pattern.

---

Well, yes and no. I admit that it’s not how we understand these things today. But, I don’t discount the fact that it is the way the biblical authors would’ve described something they couldn’t possibly understand.

quote:

---

It’s not because of the people in the group but my study of the subject matter that has led me to conclude the claims of that religion are false.

---

Interdasting. I would posit that the exact same approach has led me to the opposite conclusion. The question is why? The answer is because we both found what we were looking for. Which is essentially what the Bible says will happen. (We need a winky face emoji)

quote:

---

I’d invite you to listen to Dr Ehrman

---

I have. Extensively. What I have found is that (like you, Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, O’Connor, etc ad nauseam) his arrogance concerning his claimed incontrovertible knowledge of things that can not possibly be known- is intellectually untenable. He reminds me of the kid in 5th grade talking about how many girls he’s slept with. He’s clearly more “successful” in his current role than he was as a Baptist minister. Some would call that motivation. I just pray that God’s grace finds him.

quote:

---

I hope you have had a great weekend

---

Same to you, PS.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Foomanchoo

---

Man I miss my dawg! Say what you will, but that man is one of the most biblically literate posters on this board.

---

He knows the literal English words well, but he lacks knowledge of written history of Middle East, the archaeological evidence, biology including evolution and DNA, geology. He can’t put himself in the shoes of the ancient peoples or of the scribes who wrote the manuscripts. He ignores verifiable facts that are evidently true, therefore he is ignorant. He’s a loon, and I wouldn’t put you in a bucket even close to him.

quote:

---

many people used to believe in those other “gods.” No one does now. No offense, but to even compare them to the Christian God is a very weak argument

---

Why? There’s just as much reason and evidence to believe in those other gods as the Christian God. That is to say - no reason nor any evidence.

quote:

---

How convenient (and intellectually dishonest) for your position. Read your quote again, and tell me how it is not self-contradictory

---

I disagree. I can say your God does not exist. I can also say I do not believe in the existence of your God. It is lack of belief. I don’t have to disprove God’s existence just as I don’t have to disprove the existence of leprechauns to not believe in them. Positive assertions require positive evidence. We may have to just disagree on the subject.

quote:

---

Your inclusion of “fairytales” (that no one is positing a truth claim for) in this statement is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, thereby showing the weakness of your argument.

---

I don’t think ridicule shows weakness at all, but it’s not the nicest thing. I’m going to try to be better and nicer.

quote:

---

claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is, in fact, circular reasoning

---

I don’t think so. The example I used was the Bible is the Truth, because the Truth is in the Bible. That’s foomanchoo circular logic. Two things that depend on each other in both directions. A proves B, because B proves A. That’s circular and that’s what I’m describing.

quote:

---

Well, you are a self-proclaimed atheist (who ironically argues for Gnosticism

---

I do kind of enjoy arguing based on the worldview of Gnosticism and Marcionism. It’s fascinating, and I enjoy learning about those subjects. Have you ever had to take a persuasive speaking course and argue in favor of a position you don’t actually support? That’s me sometimes. My intention though is to share some knowledge I’ve picked up and to get people to think a bit.

quote:

---

Bruh-

---

You are giving yourself away. I bet you are from so where between Lake Charles and Baton Rouge and south of Alex.

quote:

---

You Will Not Believe How Much Water Has Been Found Floating in Space

---

Are you arguing for a firmament? The great solid dome in the sky, hard as a cast iron mirror? I know you know better. Interesting though that they found water in space. It’s not surprising to me in the least though because just about everything is in spaces. Hell, there’s oceans of Natural Gas (CH4 methane) and more crude oil in the crust of Saturn’s moon, Titan, than we know about on earth.

quote:

---

What I have found is that (like you, Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, O’Connor, etc ad nauseam) his arrogance concerning his claimed incontrovertible knowledge of things that can not possibly be known

---

That perceived arrogance is due to their frustrations of them showing incontrovertible facts of the Bible’s many contradictions and scientific inaccuracies and yet the believers will believe anyway and be ignorant - because they are ignoring the evidence against their own beliefs while believing without any evidence but with a desire to delude themselves. Did you watch the video I linked? I think you would understand everything Bart is saying, and you’d be Ok with it as it wouldn’t test your faith. At the same time, if foomanchoo would watch that video, he’d have to write a mental gymnastics book to counter Bart’s clear and easy to follow facts.

quote:

---

many people used to believe in those other “gods.” No one does now.

---

quote:

---

Why? There’s just as much reason and evidence to believe in those other gods as the Christian God. That is to say - no reason nor any evidence

---

IF that were true; then how do you explain the rapid growth and endurance of the Christian faith? Surely if there were no evidence, and no reason behind it- it would have faded away by now?

quote:

---

I can say your God does not exist. I can also say I do not believe in the existence of your God. It is lack of belief

---

There is no neutrality in belief. In order to lack belief in something, you must lack any knowledge of it whatsoever. Agnosticism is as close as one can get to neutrality- but essentially it is just bouncing back and forth between two opposing views- with the inability to settle on one or the other. You don’t just “lack belief” in God- you positively believe that no God exists. Surely a rational person, such as yourself, would have logical reasons for any belief that you hold. And surely those reasons would be based on evidence. Otherwise, you would be guilty of that which you accuse others of.

quote:

---

I don’t have to disprove God’s existence just as I don’t have to disprove the existence of leprechauns to not believe in them.

---

Of course not. You can’t disprove the existence of God with any more certainty than I can prove the existence of God. All we can (and should) do, is give reasons for why we believe what we do.

quote:

---

Positive assertions require positive evidence

---

So, when you assert that there is no God- are you not positive? And here I am thinking that you believed that.

quote:

---

I don’t think ridicule shows weakness at all

---

Perhaps not always. But, it is the preferred tactic of the left, so, I would encourage you to use it sparingly. I think you generally do a good job of that.

quote:

---

but it’s not the nicest thing. I’m going to try to be better and nicer.

---

I think it would serve you better to avoid it altogether. The ability to argue without resorting to ridicule tends to display a higher level of confidence in one’s position. Ridicule is generally utilized as an overcompensation for a weak argument. You’re better than that.

quote:

---

The example I used was the Bible is the Truth, because the Truth is in the Bible. That’s foomanchoo circular logic. Two things that depend on each other in both directions. A proves B, because B proves A. That’s circular and that’s what I’m describing.

---

I agree. I think where we disagree is whether or not the assertion that God does not exist is a positive claim that should bear a similar burden of proof. Again, neither position can be proven, but both positions should be reinforced by reason and/or evidence. I think that the claim itself is just a way to avoid any scrutiny of a particular position. I can understand it’s sensibility in the hypothetical scenario of arguing against FSM and leprechauns ( )- as no one is arguing for their existence; but in the debate over the existence of God, and the ramifications thereof- I think it is a red herring.

quote:

---

Have you ever had to take a persuasive speaking course and argue in favor of a position you don’t actually support?

---

Not in a formal setting. But, I almost constantly have a devil’s advocate dialogue going on internally.

quote:

---

My intention though is to share some knowledge I’ve picked up and to get people to think a bit.

---

I have come to appreciate that about you.

quote:

---

You are giving yourself away. I bet you are from so where between Lake Charles and Baton Rouge and south of Alex.

---

Worse- Denham Springs (currently). Though, I might add, that have had much variety of cultural and educational influences that have made me the pseudo intellectual redneck that I am today.

quote:

---

Are you arguing for a firmament? The great solid dome in the sky, hard as a cast iron mirror?

---

Maybe? I don’t know. I can see how an ancient near eastern goat herder with a limited knowledge of the universe could use metaphor to describe something he couldn’t possibly understand.

quote:

---

because they are ignoring the evidence against their own beliefs while believing without any evidence but with a desire to delude themselves.

---

Ironically, I would argue that this is also true of the atheist position. We will undoubtedly disagree on what is incontrovertible fact, as well as what constitutes evidence.

quote:

---

Did you watch the video I linked? I think you would understand everything Bart is saying, and you’d be Ok with it as it wouldn’t test your faith.

---

I didn’t. I will try to get around to it. My faith is not based solely on biblical inerrancy. It is based primarily upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is bolstered by the plethora of sound, logical arguments for the existence of God, and the ever increasing archaeological and historical evidence of the historicity of the biblical account. But, at the end of the day- it is truly faith alone upon which I rest my case. If I am wrong (which I do not believe I am), I am prepared to accept the consequences. Are you?

quote:

---

I don’t think so. The example I used was the Bible is the Truth, because the Truth is in the Bible. That’s foomanchoo circular logic. Two things that depend on each other in both directions. A proves B, because B proves A. That’s circular and that’s what I’m describing.

---

I’ve been too busy lately to participate (Prodigal has been doing a great job of defending the Faith against your irrational hatred of your maker from what I can tell) but I just happened to peek in and see this nonsense.

I just want to mention a couple things: first a circular argument is not always fallacious. Only viciously circular arguments are fallacious. When you are arguing about ultimates, you necessarily wander into the realm of the circular because you cannot appeal to anything greater. For example, if I asked you to defend the existence of the laws of logic without using logic, you couldn’t do it.

For the Christian, the Bible is God’s revelation and the basis for our Faith. Without the Bible, we would not have the Gospel which is recorded in it, and no Gospel means no knowledge of the only means of salvation from the sins we know we commit. Therefore, while the existence of God can be shown from nature, all that knowledge can do is make men even more culpable for their damnation; it cannot save. To abandon the Bible is to reject both a clear evidence for the specific God of the universe as well as reject the only means of the knowledge of salvation. If the Bible is God’s word, then it is not off limits since it is God’s own testimony for Himself and the ultimate standard that cannot appeal to anything greater.

Second: when I argue the existence of God, I use biblical concepts but I typically use the transcendental argument for God, which is a philosophical argument based on biblical truth: the proof of God’s existence is that if He did not exist, you couldn’t prove anything. God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility and you couldn’t make sense of reality if He did not exist. I spend a lot of time talking about this argument as it is applied to morality to show the arbitrary/irrational nature of moral standards if God did not exist.

So please stop mischaracterizing my position and my arguments. Embrace the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before you have to give an account to the maker you claim doesn’t exist.

quote:

---

IF that were true; then how do you explain the rapid growth and endurance of the Christian faith? Surely if there were no evidence, and no reason behind it- it would have faded away by now?

---

There are reasons, but it’s not based on any evidence of correct theology.

Firstly, Roman emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380CE which made Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire. They tolerated the pagan religions for some time, but most people quickly switched to Christianity because there were many economic advantages such as being able to serve in the military and to secure favorable contracts and such. (Similar to so many people in Germany joining the Nazi party even though they were personally against genocide of Jews, or how in order to be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, or a plumber in Iraq under Saddam you had to be a member of the Baath party).

Secondly, the Christians conquered and colonized most of Africa and the Americas and forcibly converted natives to Christianity, and those who refused were murdered.

You wrote about endurance of the Christian faith, but in the countries that are scientifically educated with high intelligence with moderate birth rates, Christianity is actually in rapid decline.
Pew Research: rapid decline of Christianity

quote:

---

There is no neutrality in belief. In order to lack belief in something, you must lack any knowledge of it whatsoever.

---

I’m not sure if you meant to word this the way you did. I’m sure you lack belief that Santa is real, but you are aware of the tales of Santa. You are also I’m sure aware of the claims of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but you lack a belief in those claims.

quote:

---

So, when you assert that there is no God- are you not positive?

---

What I am absolutely positive of is that the gods described in the Bible are fabricated by the delusions of men. Maybe it is possible that a god exists, or perhaps many, but I know that the Bible can’t possibly accurately describe them. Perhaps it is better for me to merely state “I do not believe in your god or gods” rather than stating “there is no god”. As I’ve been clear before, no one can prove a negative.

quote:

---

I can see how an ancient near eastern goat herder with a limited knowledge of the universe could use metaphor to describe something he couldn’t possibly understand.

---

Hey, they herded sheep too, not just goats. In many places in the Bible, the firmament is literally stated to be firm, and with the substance similar too and as hard as and reflective as a cast iron mirror, or like glass. During Noah’s flood story, the windows of the firmament open to allow the rain to fall. I personally don’t believe it was written metaphorically. If it was though, how then do you decide what is literal and what is metaphor? If you state that it was written by goat herders who just didn’t have an idea because their science hadn’t progressed yet, then how can anyone claim it was inspired by God? Because it’s scientifically wrong.

quote:

---

My faith is not based solely on biblical inerrancy. It is based primarily upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

How can you even be sure that really happened? The gospels can’t agree on whether Jesus died the day after the Passover meal was eaten or was it the day of preparation of the Passover meal. They can’t agree on whether he was born in a house or in a barn because no house was available. They can’t agree on whether baby Jesus went to Egypt before going to Nazareth, or if he went straight from Bethlehem to Nazareth. They can’t agree whether Jesus was born under king Herod or if he was born under the Roman governor Quirinius. Was Jesus’ last words “Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani” or was it “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” or was it “it is finished”? Did both criminals crucified with Jesus talk trash about him, or was one nice to him? Was the temple veil ripped before Jesus died, or after Jesus died? Was there one man, one angel, two men, or two angels in Jesus’ tomb when Jesus’ followers went to it? Did the two women run and tell everyone, or did they run away in fear and tell no one about the resurrection? Did Jesus’ disciples stay in Jersusalem and never leave while Jesus appeared to them, or did the disciples travel to Galilee where Jesus appeared there? It depends which gospel you read and/or believe to be the “Truth”. If they can’t agree on any of those details (and much more) and many of those details are contradictions that cannot be reconciled, then how can we believe any of it?

I guess you can say - well they all say Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day and we must believe in him for salvation. True, but you could throw all those gospel accounts away and just read Paul’s epistles and you’d get that same message.

quote:

---

It is bolstered by the plethora of sound, logical arguments for the existence of God

---

I haven’t heard such a thing. Can you share one with us, or post a link?

quote:

---

ever increasing archaeological and historical evidence of the historicity of the biblical account

---

I think you are conflating the evidence and being vague with what you call the “biblical account”. Archeological and historical evidence confirms things such as the fact that the Israelites were sacrificing their firstborn children to Yahweh, and that King Mesha (of Moab) really did defeat Israel in battle, and the Assyrians really did whip Israel’s butt and the Babylonians really did whip Judah’s butt. On the other hand, that same archeological and historical (and scientific) evidence has proven that there were no Adam and Even, that creation a la Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2-3 didn’t happen, that Noah’s flood didn’t happen, that the Exodus from Egypt didn’t happen, and that the ancient Israelites were just simply Canaanites who were already in the promised land.

quote:

---

If I am wrong (which I do not believe I am), I am prepared to accept the consequences. Are you?

---

I don’t know if it is possible to be prepared. I don’t have a good answer for you. I’m confident though that at the end of life, we simply cease to exist. Just like in Genesis and Ecclesiastes actually, which state we are from dust and to dust we shall return, and we are no different from any of the animals in that when we die, our thoughts and passions die with us. You seem to be a big fan of Pascal, and you seem to believe you are wagering your beliefs to be the correct beliefs… out of the 30,000 or so different religions, you still have very low odds of being correct. If you assume there is exactly one correct religion, then your wager would leave you with statistical odds no different than mine.

Let me leave you with this excerpt from Ecclesiastes:

quote:

---

19For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. 20All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 21Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?

---