30 Dec 08
2 edits
Anyone ever read Lee Strobel? He used to be an atheist and was a journalist with the New York Times (I think) and he set out to prove that Jesus was NOT who he said he was and in the process he proved that Jesus is who he said he was. He proved this using investigative journalism, reading historical accounts, and numerous interviews of professionals. His books The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, The Case for Faith, The Case for the Real Jesus Christ (among others) are excellent and provide an amazing foundation for the believer. The amazing thing to me is that he set out as a skeptic and became a believer because of the evidence that he found.
30 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by chappy1Anyone ever read Dan Barker? He used to be an evangelical Christian and was a minister and he set out to spread the word of God. In the process he lost his faith and became an atheist. His books, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, and Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists are excellent and provide an amazing case for rejecting religious claims. The amazing thing to me is that he set out as a believer and became a skeptic because of the (lack of) evidence he found.
Anyone ever read Lee Strobel? He used to be an atheist and was a journalist with the New York Times (I think) and he set out to prove that Jesus was NOT who he said he was and in the process he proved that Jesus is who he said he was. He proved this using investigative journalism, reading historical accounts, and numerous interviews of professionals. His ...[text shortened]... me is that he set out as a skeptic and became a believer because of the evidence that he found.
30 Dec 08
Originally posted by chappy1No sorry, facinating story though i bet. God bless him.
Anyone ever read Lee Strobel? He used to be an atheist and was a journalist with the New York Times (I think) and he set out to prove that Jesus was NOT who he said he was and in the process he proved that Jesus is who he said he was. He proved this using investigative journalism, reading historical accounts, and numerous interviews of professionals. His ...[text shortened]... me is that he set out as a skeptic and became a believer because of the evidence that he found.
30 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettNo sorry, facinating story though I bet. God save him.
Anyone ever read Dan Barker? He used to be an evangelical Christian and was a minister and he set out to spread the word of God. In the process he lost his faith and became an atheist. His books, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, and Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists are excellent and ...[text shortened]... that he set out as a believer and became a skeptic because of the (lack of) evidence he found.
30 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettHave you in fact read Dan Barker or are you simply countering me?
Anyone ever read Dan Barker? He used to be an evangelical Christian and was a minister and he set out to spread the word of God. In the process he lost his faith and became an atheist. His books, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, and Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists are excellent and ...[text shortened]... that he set out as a believer and became a skeptic because of the (lack of) evidence he found.
30 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettNo proof is ever possible. You can't find God by reason alone , you have to meet him on the very ground of your being.
I don't. But I repeat, it isn't up to me to prove that your experience isn't genuine. It's up to you to prove that it is. The burden of proof lies entirely upon you. You may convince yourself of any number of things, but it isn't so easy to convince other people.
30 Dec 08
Originally posted by chappy1Funny you should ask. Having just gotten it for Christmas, I am reading the second of Mr. Barker's books now. I have read other things by him before, in the Freedom From Religion Foundation's (FFRF) newsletter, so I am familiar with with Mr. Barker's story at least. But of course I was merely showing that there are 'conversion' stories on both sides of the issue.
Have you in fact read Dan Barker or are you simply countering me?
30 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettIt depends on what you mean by proof. If one means a kind of formulaic mathematical proof backed up by scientific evidence then no proof is possible. However , God can prove himself to any individual , just don't expect the proof to be published in the New Scientist.
I agree that no proof is possible. But Christians never seem to tire of claiming the opposite.
My wife constantly proves to me that she loves me , I cannot logically prove this to anyone else though. There is no formula. Just love and experience of love.
31 Dec 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterSanta just proved his love for millions of children by leaving them nice gifts Christmas morning. Since no one can prove that Santa doesn't exist, he must exist because children believe in him according to the "logic" used in this thread.
It depends on what you mean by proof. If one means a kind of formulaic mathematical proof backed up by scientific evidence then no proof is possible. However , God can prove himself to any individual , just don't expect the proof to be published in the New Scientist.
My wife constantly proves to me that she loves me , I cannot logically prove this to anyone else though. There is no formula. Just love and experience of love.
31 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's not logic, that's trite.
Santa just proved his love for millions of children by leaving them nice gifts Christmas morning. Since no one can prove that Santa doesn't exist, he must exist because children believe in him according to the "logic" used in this thread.
31 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettOh I agree that there are stories on both sides. Have you read Strobel?
Funny you should ask. Having just gotten it for Christmas, I am reading the second of Mr. Barker's books now. I have read other things by him before, in the Freedom From Religion Foundation's (FFRF) newsletter, so I am familiar with with Mr. Barker's story at least. But of course I was merely showing that there are 'conversion' stories on both sides of the issue.
31 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesterI think it does illustrate a logical point about proving a negative, which was raised in the opening post. In fact, if one thinks about it, there is far more evidence (whether one counts it as good or bad evidence) for the existence of Santa Claus than for his nonexistence. There are stories, pictures, films, etc., etc, etc. What evidence is there for Santa’s nonexistence?
That's not logic, that's trite.
And yet, neither you nor I think that Santa Claus exists. But how would you answer someone who thinks that the fact that you cannot prove that Santa doesn’t exist is somehow decisive?
You can, without too much trouble, substitute “God” for “Santa”, and the twin problems of what constitutes acceptable evidence for existence, and that of non-evidence for non-existence remain. But—
Simply substituting “God” for “Santa”, and “the Bible” for “The Night Before Christmas”—etc., etc.—does not alter either the logic or the question of acceptable evidence. For that reason, much of the debate on here centers on the question of what does/ought to constitute acceptable (epistemically justifying) evidence, and such logical errors as circular reasoning. But every once in awhile, somebody posts something that seems to imply that different rules of evidence and/or logic apply to the existence of God than to the existence of—say—Santa. In such a context, the triteness may be justified.