John Lennox on Faith

The resurrection of the Son of God for a start.
Try
@BiasForAction

@Mathers if it’s free I’ll take a look
Not willing to buy it since my prior is no evidence for the resurrection

Thought you’d do better by actually providing your own opinion on evidence

So you’re not willing to look at the evidence? You are indeed ‘biased for inaction’ ?@BiasForAction

@Mathers I don’t want to pay for something you can explain for free. Why do you choose not to?

There is rather a lot to explain.

The fact is that so many people have tried to disprove the resurrection and ended up proving it. @BiasForAction

@Mathers try

There are 1000 manuscripts which testify@BiasForAction

@Mathers you have no idea what you are talking about. I asked one simple question which you cannot answer, I’m done.

I have every idea when I’m talking about the problem is that you are totally unwilling to listen to any form of evidence or read any form of evidence for yourself because you don’t want to know. The resurrection is the best attested fact in history in terms of ancient manuscripts. The most ancient historical events we have one or two manuscripts but with the New Testament we have thousands of them. We can put down a pretty safe guarantee that we have the new Testament as it was originally written by eyewitnesses or those who knew eyewitnesses as 99.5%. It’s a science called textual criticism@BiasForAction

@Mathers Just because the texts are ancient doesn't mean they can't be works of fiction or the product of guillible people.

And it doesn’t matter whether the texted are ancient they can still be true whether or not gullible people think they are fiction @PrincessOfHell

@Mathers [quote]So you’re not willing to look at the evidence?[/quote]
He clearly said he is willing to look at the evidence, just not willing to pay for christian propaganda.

Well you could look at any New Testament. Your problem is you have a closed mind@rob19

@Mathers You use the Bible as "evidence" for God's existence, then use that same God as justification for trusting the Bible. That is textbook circular reasoning. Without additional proof either for the Bible's trustworthiness or for God's existence Christianity doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You use Caesar’s Gallic history as evidence don’t you? Far less reliable than the New Testament textually. In fact it is the most reliable historical document of its time. @PrincessOfHell

@Mathers Caesars existence is backed up by many different sources and there are only few other sources besides Caesar's on the Gallic war. We know it happened and have to critically view that the main source was written from Ceasars point of view. Difficult to objectively recount the events but the evidence that it happened is strong.

@Mathers also the Bible is of course an historic document in the sense that it accuretly portraits some occurences at the time it was written but it is in no way proof for the existence of a God.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Of course, common sense points to a creator but who needs common sense when prejudice will do?@PrincessOfHell

@Mathers Thanks for admitting that. I see no reason in postulating the existence of a God. Especially not the Christian one. Funny you use the term common sense in this context when basic reasoning does in no way lead to the conclusion that there is a creator.
Fact is we don't know but what we do know is that things evolve and change through a complex interplay. Looking at the world from that point of view there is no reason to believe in an all mighty God who imposes rules on us.

You once wrote that you don't believe in the God of the Gaps but nearly every idea and concept of a higher power is an attempt to fill gaps.

Well of course if you don’t believe that common sense leads you to the conclusion that Beethoven’s 9th symphony needs a Beethoven then I suppose you will say that. Because we know the mechanism by which things evolve you apparently think you can dispense with the agency by which they evolve but never mind. Your reasoning is faulty as an omnipotent creator is not the ‘god of the gaps’ which we have never believed in but the source of all things. If you reckon on God as the god of the gaps ut’s no wonder you do not believe. I don’t believe in that ‘god’ either! , @PrincessOfHell

@Mathers [quote]Well you could look at any New Testament.[/quote]
I've read it, in three different versions. It was part of what cinvinced me christianity is all BS, hateful BS at that.

[quote]You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.[/quote]
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of Odin/Zeus/Jove/The Flying Spaghetti Monster either, Do you, therefore, believe they are all real too?

[quote]Of course, common sense points to a creator but who needs common sense when prejudice will do?[/quote]
Two points: 1) It doesn't; 2) Even if a creator do exist, why must it be your god and not one of the thousands of others, or even an unknown one?

God shows himself in the resurrection of Jesus. @rob19

@Mathers There's no real evidence Jesus did come back to life. Just a few fairy stories written at least a few decades after the supposed event.

Remember. Odin returned after sacrificing himself on the Yggdrasil Tree too.

There is actually very real evidence that Jesus came back to life. Just that certain people who haven’t investigated confuse it with fairy stories. Everyone I know who has looked at the evidence takes it seriously even if they eventually do not agree with it@rob19