Thread 939410884

No single argument “proves” God in the way a math equation proves a theorem. But taken together, multiple lines of reasoning—from philosophy, science, history, and human experience—form a powerful cumulative case that belief in God is rational and compelling.

1. Cosmological Argument (Existence Itself)
Why does anything exist rather than nothing? The universe had a beginning (Big Bang, finite past time). Contingent things require a cause. Tracing causes back points to a necessary, uncaused reality—the “ground of being.” This aligns with the idea of God as eternal source.

2. Fine-Tuning Argument (Order in Nature)
The fundamental constants of physics (gravity, electromagnetism, expansion rate of the universe, etc.) are precisely balanced to permit life. The odds against this happening by chance are astronomically low. Either multiverse speculation accounts for it, or there’s intentional calibration—what many call design.

3. Argument from Consciousness
Matter arranged by blind forces doesn’t explain subjective experience—our awareness, thoughts, qualia. Consciousness seems irreducible to chemistry. If mind exists fundamentally, it makes more sense under a universe grounded in a divine Mind rather than blind matter.

4. Moral Argument
We all recognize objective moral values: that cruelty is truly wrong, that love and justice are truly good. If morality were just social convention, we’d have no basis to condemn slavery, genocide, or oppression across cultures. The reality of binding moral truth points to a transcendent moral lawgiver.

5. Argument from Beauty
Beauty has no survival necessity, yet it pierces us with meaning—sunsets, music, art. It resonates with a sense of transcendence, suggesting there is more to reality than utility. Many see beauty as a window to the divine.

6. Argument from Desire (C.S. Lewis)
Every natural desire corresponds to something real: hunger to food, thirst to water, companionship to community. Humans also have a desire for eternity, infinite meaning, union with something greater. Nothing in this world fully satisfies it—hinting that the object of that desire lies beyond this world.

7. Argument from Religious Experience
Across cultures and centuries, billions report encounters with God—through prayer, visions, miracles, and inner transformation. While subjective, the consistency and transformative power of these experiences suggest they point to something real.

8. Argument from Miracles
Historical claims of miracles (healings, answered prayers, resurrection reports) can be disputed, but they are not mere fabrications. In Christianity especially, early disciples went to their deaths insisting they saw the risen Christ. Hallucination and fabrication don’t fully explain their conviction.

9. Argument from History
Jesus of Nazareth is historically attested by hostile and neutral sources (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Talmud). His life and death are not myth but rooted in history. The explosive rise of Christianity—transforming the Roman world against the odds—begs for an explanation beyond mere invention.

10. Ontological Argument (Philosophical)
If it’s possible that a maximally great being exists (all-powerful, all-knowing, necessary), then such a being exists in at least one possible world. If it exists in one, by definition it must exist in all—including ours. Abstract, but taken seriously by many philosophers.

11. Argument from Moral Transformation
Not just that morals exist, but that belief in God has repeatedly produced radical transformation in individuals and societies—Augustine, Francis, Tolstoy, MLK Jr. The fruits of genuine faith often defy naturalistic explanation.

Conclusion

Any one argument may be resistible. But together they converge on the same point: that theism explains more about existence, consciousness, morality, history, and human experience than atheism or materialism alone. Belief in God is not wishful thinking or blind tradition—it is a reasoned response to the deepest features of reality.

>>939410921
Refutations of the Arguments for God

1. Cosmological Argument

Rebuttal: Even if the universe had a beginning, it doesn’t mean a personal God caused it. It could be explained by natural laws, quantum fluctuations, or unknown physics. Appealing to God just pushes the mystery back: “Where did God come from?” If God can be eternal and uncaused, why not the universe itself?

2. Fine-Tuning Argument

Rebuttal: The universe seems improbable because we can only observe one that permits our existence. This is an anthropic bias: of course it looks special, because we’re here to see it. A multiverse could explain apparent fine-tuning without invoking design. The “odds” may also be meaningless—maybe physical constants couldn’t have been otherwise.

3. Argument from Consciousness

Rebuttal: Consciousness is poorly understood, but invoking God doesn’t solve it—it just relocates the mystery. Neuroscience is steadily showing correlations between brain processes and consciousness. The “hard problem” may eventually have a natural explanation, just as lightning and disease did. Saying “mind must come from Mind” risks being a “God of the gaps” move.

4. Moral Argument

Rebuttal: Morality can be explained without God—through evolution (social cooperation, empathy), cultural development, or reason. Objective moral values may not exist at all—they could be human projections. Even if they did exist, it doesn’t follow they require a lawgiver. Mathematical truths exist without a mathematician—why not moral truths?

5. Argument from Beauty

Rebuttal: Beauty is subjective, not universal. What one culture or person finds beautiful, another may not. Evolutionary psychology suggests our sense of beauty developed because it aided survival (e.g., attraction to fertile mates, appreciation of fertile landscapes). Invoking God to explain beauty may romanticize a natural byproduct of survival instincts.

Your fortune: （　´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ

>>939410921
6. Argument from Desire (C.S. Lewis)

Rebuttal: The “desire for something more” could simply be a byproduct of consciousness—our ability to imagine infinity and perfection doesn’t mean they exist. Humans desire many impossible things (immortality, perfect justice), and the existence of the desire doesn’t prove an object that satisfies it.

7. Argument from Religious Experience

Rebuttal: Billions report religious experiences—but they differ radically (Christian visions, Hindu deities, shamanic spirits). They can’t all be equally true, which suggests many are psychological, cultural, or neurological in origin. Drugs, fasting, and brain stimulation can induce similar “spiritual” states. The consistency of reports may reflect shared brain wiring, not objective reality.

8. Argument from Miracles

Rebuttal: Miracles rely on testimony, and humans are prone to exaggeration, error, and myth-making. Ancient miracle reports are indistinguishable from legends. Many modern “miracles” can be explained by coincidence, misdiagnosis, or placebo effect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and miracle reports usually lack it.

9. Argument from History (Jesus & Christianity)

Rebuttal: The fact that Jesus lived doesn’t prove divinity. Resurrection claims could be explained by legend, hallucination, or later embellishment. The growth of Christianity doesn’t prove its truth—Islam, Buddhism, and Mormonism also spread rapidly. History shows human movements thrive for many reasons besides divine intervention.

10. Ontological Argument

Rebuttal: This is wordplay. Defining God into existence doesn’t make Him real. You could define a “perfect island” as necessarily existing, but that doesn’t make it pop into reality. Possibility doesn’t entail actuality—logical constructs don’t prove external existence.

>>939410921
11. Argument from Moral Transformation

Rebuttal: Transformation happens in all religions and even secular philosophies. People are deeply changed by Buddhism, Stoicism, Marxism, or therapy. That faith inspires moral action doesn’t prove its truth, only its psychological and social power.

Conclusion of Refutations

All of these arguments share a weakness: they take mysteries, intuitions, or deep features of human existence and infer God. But a skeptic would say:

Mysteries aren’t evidence.

Human perception is unreliable.

Natural explanations, though incomplete, are more parsimonious than positing a transcendent being.

So, while these arguments are intriguing, none are airtight proofs. A skeptic could reasonably reject them all while still acknowledging they point to important human questions.

>>939410884 (OP)
>form a powerful cumulative case that belief in God is rational and compelling
no they don't, wishful thinking isn't a rational or compelling reason

>>939411043
The Theist’s Counter-Rebuttals

1. Cosmological Argument

Skeptic: “If God can be eternal, why not the universe?”

Believer: The universe shows evidence of beginning (Big Bang, entropy). But God is by definition outside time and space, not bound by natural laws. Asking “who made God” mistakes the category: He is the necessary ground of being, not a contingent object.

2. Fine-Tuning

Skeptic: “Multiverse or necessity explains it.”

Believer: The multiverse is speculative, with no evidence. Claiming constants had to be what they are assumes what we don’t know. But fine-tuning is empirical—we see it. Inferring design is a rational move, just as we infer intelligence from complex codes.

3. Consciousness

Skeptic: “Neuroscience is closing the gap.”

Believer: Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Studying brain activity is like studying a radio’s circuits—you’ll never find the announcer inside. Consciousness is qualitatively different from matter. Theism provides a simpler, more natural explanation: mind comes from a greater Mind.

4. Morality

Skeptic: “Morality evolved.”

Believer: Evolution may explain how we come to sense morality, but not why morality has binding force. “You shouldn’t murder” isn’t just preference or survival instinct—it’s an objective truth. Without God, moral outrage reduces to subjective opinion.

5. Beauty

Skeptic: “Beauty is subjective.”

Believer: If beauty were purely subjective, its universality across cultures would be inexplicable. From sunsets to music to selfless acts, humans recognize something transcendent. Beauty doesn’t ensure God, but it resonates with the idea that the universe is not cold accident, but artistry.

>>939411043
6. Desire (Lewis)

Skeptic: “Desire doesn’t mean fulfillment exists.”

Believer: True, but every fundamental desire (food, love, knowledge) has a real object. The universal longing for meaning, transcendence, immortality is strange unless there is something to satisfy it. This “inconsolable secret” points to a real destination beyond nature.

7. Religious Experience

Skeptic: “Contradictory experiences cancel each other.”

Believer: Experiences differ in form but may share the same source, filtered through culture. That billions of people across time report encounters with the transcendent is at least cumulative evidence. If even one is authentic, materialism fails.

8. Miracles

Skeptic: “Anecdotes aren’t evidence.”

Believer: If we reject all testimony of the extraordinary, history collapses. Courts rely on testimony daily. If multiple credible witnesses across cultures attest to healings, visions, or resurrections, the rational move isn’t to dismiss a priori, but to weigh the evidence case by case.

9. History (Jesus & Christianity)

Skeptic: “Legends explain resurrection claims.”

Believer: Legends take time to develop, but the resurrection was proclaimed within years, not centuries. Alternative theories (hallucination, theft, myth) strain plausibility. Something extraordinary happened that transformed terrified disciples into fearless martyrs and birthed the largest religion in history.

10. Ontological Argument

Skeptic: “Defining God into existence is wordplay.”

Believer: It’s not mere definition—it’s exploring the concept of a being whose essence entails existence. If God is possible, then by necessity He exists in all possible worlds. Dismissing it as wordplay avoids grappling with its logical force.

This ChatGPT spamming faggot is as bad as the logfag and needs to be permanently filtered and banned.

>>939411043
11. Moral Transformation

Skeptic: “Other philosophies transform too.”

Believer: True—but Christian transformation centers not on self-improvement but on grace: broken lives restored, addicts freed, enemies reconciled. This unique pattern, sustained for millennia, suggests more than mere psychology—it suggests an active Presence.

Final Pushback

A theist would close by saying: none of these arguments, by themselves, “prove” God beyond doubt. But together they form a cumulative case—converging lines of evidence, like clues in a detective story. One clue may be ambiguous; all of them together point strongly toward design, transcendence, and divinity.

>>939411098
Calling it ‘wishful thinking’ doesn’t really engage with the arguments themselves. Wishful thinking is believing something in spite of the evidence. What’s being presented here is belief because of multiple converging lines of evidence and reasoning.

Philosophy, cosmology, morality, consciousness, history—these aren’t just vague hopes, they’re serious attempts to account for reality. You don’t have to agree with the conclusions, but it’s not honest to reduce centuries of thought and billions of human experiences to ‘just wishful thinking.’

If anything, dismissing it all out of hand looks closer to wishful thinking—wishing the arguments away without wrestling with them.

>>939411174
Go back to gooning, bot

>>939411254
>Wishful thinking is believing something in spite of the evidence
you mean in spite of lack of evidence, i.e. faith alone
please to ignorance and faith are in no way compelling arguments for the existence of any gods

>>939411336
No—faith in the biblical or philosophical sense isn’t ‘belief without evidence,’ it’s trust grounded in what one has reason to believe. We all operate this way in daily life: you don’t have absolute proof the sun will rise tomorrow, but you trust it will, based on evidence and experience.

Calling every argument for God ‘appeal to ignorance’ is just inaccurate. Cosmological arguments, moral realism, fine-tuning in physics, and the reality of consciousness are positive evidence that demand explanation. You can reject ‘God’ as the best explanation, but you can’t say there’s no evidence.

The irony is: dismissing centuries of arguments without engaging them is closer to blind faith than what you accuse theists of.

>>939411394
>faith isn’t ‘belief without evidence'
that's literally what it is, what do you even mean?

Faith and being delusional are the same thing
>The CIA can read my thoughts and will punish me for having wrong thoughts. That is why I wear this foil hat
Dude, you are delusional.

>God can read my thoughts and will punish me for having the wrong thoughts.
Yup, you are a faithful Christian!

>>939411432
That’s a common misconception. Faith ≠ blind belief. Even in scripture, faith is described as ‘assurance’ and ‘trust,’ not closing your eyes and leaping into the dark.

Think of it this way: when you trust a friend to keep a promise, that’s faith. It isn’t ‘without evidence’—it’s based on past experience, character, and reason to believe they’ll follow through. You don’t know with certainty, but you have grounds to trust.

The same with faith in God—it’s trust in light of evidence and reason, not the absence of it. To equate faith with gullibility is just a shallow caricature.

>>939411447
Equating faith with delusion ignores a key difference: delusion is belief contrary to all available evidence and reason, while faith is trust in light of evidence and lived experience.

The CIA + foil hat example is delusional precisely because there’s no serious philosophical, historical, or experiential grounding for it. Meanwhile, belief in God is supported by centuries of argument in metaphysics, moral philosophy, cosmology, and human testimony. You may disagree with those arguments, but that doesn’t make them equivalent to paranoia.

If billions of people across cultures, centuries, and intellectual traditions have wrestled with and defended belief in God, dismissing them as ‘delusional’ says more about your unwillingness to engage than about the quality of their reasoning.

>>939411575
at least try to be funny

Your fortune: Good Luck

I took a big shit

>>939411572
>Even in scripture, faith is described as ‘assurance’ and ‘trust,’
because that's the perspective from the religious context, but in reality that "trust" is literally blind belief, based on nothing except the baseless claims made by the scriptures and the people who also believe it, there's nothing external to the scriptures that supports its supernatural claims

>>939411611
>delusion is belief contrary to all available evidence and reason
which perfectly describes religious faith, as all available evidence points to it being very unlikely that any gods exist

Modern "science" is a religion
>Trust the experts
>Dont think for yourself
>Just do what we tell you

Isn't there a place in Europe or something that supposedly has Noah's Arc?

Why haven't we just went there already.

>>939411778
whether you believe that or not, what the fuck does it have to do with this thread?

>>939411688
That’s just not accurate. Faith isn’t grounded only in scripture—it’s grounded in a convergence of external reasons that people weigh. The scriptures themselves emerged from communities that claimed to witness events, experiences, and transformations they found worth recording and passing down.

But beyond the Bible, there are external supports: philosophical reasoning about the origin and order of the universe, historical attestations to figures like Jesus from non-Christian sources (Tacitus, Josephus, etc.), the persistence of moral realism across cultures, and the universal human drive toward the transcendent.

You can reject the conclusions, but to say it’s literally nothing but baseless claims ignores the centuries of debate, evidence, and lived reality that believers actually appeal to. Faith is trust in light of reasons, not a leap without them.

>>939411723
That assumes a very narrow definition of ‘evidence.’ Faith doesn’t ignore reason; it engages with it. Arguments from cosmology, consciousness, morality, fine-tuning, and historical testimony all provide positive reasons to consider God as a plausible explanation.

Calling faith ‘delusion’ only works if you assume that the only acceptable evidence is empirical or materialistic. But belief in God isn’t based on ignoring evidence—it’s based on weighing multiple forms of evidence that science and reason alone cannot fully account for.

In short, faith isn’t a blind leap into absurdity—it’s a reasoned trust in light of cumulative evidence.

>>939411687
don't you have enough threads?

>>939411778
That’s a misconception of what science actually is. Science isn’t about blind trust—it’s a method for testing ideas, generating evidence, and correcting mistakes. Anyone can question, replicate, or falsify a claim; in fact, skepticism is the heart of science.

Science doesn’t demand obedience—it demands reasoned engagement with reality. Experts aren’t authorities to be obeyed blindly; they’re people who have spent decades understanding complex systems, publishing their reasoning and evidence so others can evaluate it.

If anything, the scientific method is the opposite of religion: it thrives on doubt, debate, and revision. God claims, by contrast, are often treated as unquestionable truths.

>>939411778
The difference is they publish all the evidence and their methods.
That is not to say there aren't issues with repeatability in science. Very few experiments are repeated by someone else to verify because.
1. It is fucking expensive and nobody is going to find a million dollar experiment just to double check someone else's work.
2. Most scientists are in the middle of doing their own research and don't have time to replicate someone else's work. You either publish or perish in science. If you don't produce results you get replaced by someone who will if you work at a university. If you work at a private lab they are only concerned about profit and creating patents so they aren't going to spend one cent replicating someone else's work just to check it.

The idea of reproducibility is nice, but most groundbreaking experiments today are incredibly expensive and require using multimillion dollar equipment.

So yes there is a bit of "faith" involved because actually checking for yourself is almost impossible.

You going to build your own James Webb Telescope? Your own Large Hadron Collider? Do you have access to a 900 MHz NMR machine that requires its own building?l and maintenance crew?

That being said, I still trust science for the most part, but there are bad actors that publish false results. There is a scandal every few years.

The proof is in the pudding. The results can be applied and new technologies and medicines etc. can be created with the results, proving the results aren't fake.

>>939411789
Claims of Noah’s Ark—like the ones on Mount Ararat—are interesting, but no verified archaeological evidence has ever been found. Expeditions and satellite imagery have turned up nothing conclusive, and many ‘discoveries’ turn out to be natural formations or hoaxes.

Also, the Ark story is often interpreted symbolically or theologically rather than literally. The lack of physical evidence doesn’t disprove the narrative’s deeper spiritual or moral significance—it just reminds us that ancient texts aren’t always meant to be read as modern history textbooks.

>>939411951
>it’s grounded in a convergence of external reasons that people weigh
it's not "grounded", it's subjectively justified in people's minds, they convince themselves it is true because they want it to be, that's what faith is and means

>>939412142
That’s conflating ‘faith’ with wishful thinking. Faith, properly understood, isn’t just ‘I want it to be true, so I believe it.’ It’s trust formed after evaluating multiple lines of evidence—historical, philosophical, moral, and experiential. People weigh reasons, consider objections, and still conclude belief is justified.

Subjectivity exists in all human reasoning; no one has access to absolute certainty. But that doesn’t make a rationally considered belief ‘just self-delusion.’ Science, philosophy, and even everyday decisions all rely on similar reasoning under uncertainty. Faith in God is no different—it’s reasoned trust, not blind wishful thinking.

>>939412109
The ark story is ridiculous. Noah supposedly got penguins from Antarctica, polar bears from the north pole, sloths from South America, coyotes from North America, kangaroos from Australia etc. Thousands of years before people knew how to navigate the globe or even knew of the other continents.

Seems legit.

And let's not forget that all humans other than Noah's family on the boat died in the flood, and Noah repopulated the world through incest. Then all the other races came about from his family, but there is no such thing as evolution... Blacks, Native Americans, Arabs, Chinese, Aboriginal people, Inuit people, Caucasians, etc. all came from Noah's family because there is no such thing as evolution.

And that was the 2nd time the world was populated through incest. Adam and Eve only had 2 sons. How were more babies made.? Cain fucked mommy. She was literally the only human female on Earth, and then those offspring fucked each other.

Or just maybe it is all horseshit.

>>939412249
>That’s conflating ‘faith’ with wishful thinking.
there's no conflating, they're are one and the same, and you refuse to admit it

>>939412463
That’s just incorrect. Wishful thinking is believing something despite evidence, whereas faith—properly understood—is believing something because of the evidence and reasoning available.

We trust doctors, pilots, or engineers not blindly, but because their expertise and track record justify it. That’s faith: trust grounded in reason, not blind hope.

To equate every considered, evidence-informed belief in God with gullible wishful thinking is a caricature—it ignores centuries of philosophical, historical, and experiential reasoning that believers actually weigh before trusting.
>>939411254

>you're trolling, right?
>Maybe strong atheists are just this retarded

>>939412638
>That’s just incorrect.
that's hilarious that you came up with a completely wrong definition of these terms
faith is, by definition, belief despite there being no evidence, i.e. wishful thinking
>That’s faith
you're trying to use the casual use of the word, i.e. faith that someone knows what they're talking about, with the use of the word in the more strict and rigorous philosophical or religious contexts where it literally means belief without proof
having faith a doctor will do their best to help your ailments is in no way the same as faith that what your religion purports is actually true

The most important event in Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. It is covered in several different Gospels.

Yet only one of them speaks of numerous people rising from the dead that day.
>51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
Matthew 27:51-53

Don't you think the other gospels would have taken note that there was a fucking zombie horde that rose up and walked through the city, not just Jesus? They just forgot to include that tiny detail?

>>939413242
>Don't you think the other gospels
or maybe literally any other written records that aren't religious? you'd think there'd be at least a few mentions of it

>>939412802
You’re relying on a very narrow, popularized definition of faith as ‘belief without evidence.’ That’s not how serious philosophers, theologians, or even the Bible define it. In philosophical and religious contexts, faith is better understood as trust grounded in reasoned consideration—the best conclusion one can reach given available evidence, even if absolute certainty is impossible.

Belief in God is not a leap into the dark; it’s a reasoned conclusion based on cumulative evidence: cosmology, consciousness, morality, historical testimony, and personal experience. It’s more like trusting a doctor or an engineer: you may not have absolute proof, but you do have reasoned grounds for confidence.

Equating all faith with blind wishful thinking is a caricature—it ignores the rational deliberation that religious and philosophical traditions have emphasized for millennia.

>>939413501
>Popularized definition
Yes, words mean what the majority of the population understands them to mean.

If I call you a cocksucking faggot, but to me that means you are good at making blueberry pancakes, that would go against the popularized definition of being a cocksucking faggot, right?

You are the one using the wrong definition, you fucking idiot.

>>939413242
>>939412463
And what happened after. Did all the other saints raised from the dead go back to their tombs after a while and die again? Did they stay resurrected?

If they stayed resurrected what makes Jesus's resurrection so special, many people did it.

Don't worry about it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

>>939413242
Good point—Matthew’s account of the saints rising is unusual, and some scholars interpret it as symbolic rather than literal. Ancient writers often used dramatic imagery to convey theological truths: earthquakes, cosmic signs, and even resurrections of ‘holy ones’ could be literary devices to emphasize Jesus’ significance and the breaking of the old covenant.

The absence of this detail in other Gospels doesn’t necessarily discredit the core resurrection claim of Jesus; it just shows that the Gospel writers had different emphases and audiences. The central claim—Jesus himself rising—remains the historically debated point, while Matthew’s ‘saints rising’ can be read as symbolic or secondary narrative flourish rather than literal zombies roaming Jerusalem.

>>939413501
>That’s not how serious philosophers
you're wrong there
>theologians, or even the Bible define it
I don't care what the bible says about it, faith by definition means belief without evidence
the bible's version of "faith" is a corrupted warm and fuzzy woo-woo version that's congruent with the supernatural claims it wants you to believe are true, based on nothing but its own words

>>939410884 (OP)
How come you don't disrupt porn threads anymore?

>>939413925
he's too busy jerking off to the bbc/cuck threads, why would he want those taken down?

>>939413888
>some scholars interpret it as symbolic rather than literal.


>The gospel truth isn't the gospel truth as long as it fits my narrative

Fuck off, you dishonest piece of shit.

>>939413632
Nice try, but that’s not how technical language works. In philosophy and theology, terms have precise meanings that often differ from colloquial usage—just like ‘mass’ in physics doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘mass’ in everyday speech.

I’m using the philosophical and religious definition of faith: trust or confidence grounded in reason and evidence, not blind hope. You’re attacking a strawman by insisting the everyday, oversimplified definition is the only valid one. Words can have multiple valid meanings depending on context; dismissing centuries of philosophical usage just because it differs from the popular understanding doesn’t make my argument wrong.

>>939414206
>that’s not how technical language works. In philosophy and theology,
theology isn't technical, why are you trying to act like theology has anywhere near the same rigor as the sciences? you're trying to lump them together to give religious text more validity and weight, it's completely dishonest
>just like ‘mass’ in physics doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘mass’ in everyday speech
now you get it, religious people make up their own terms that don't have the same bearing as the rest of the world, glad you agree
i.e. religious faith means "you should believe this because we told you told". meaning it's based on wishful thinking

Hey there! I'm a 21-year-old girl from the US, a bit on the adventurous side and totally into playful banter that gets a little steamy. I love keeping things fun and spicy while having guys lose their cool during our chats. I'm all about exploring fantasies and pushing boundaries, and I find it way easier to connect online than in person due to my shyness. So, if you're into some flirty fun that gets your heart racing, hit me up! Just add me on my favorite app: e-l y-s-i-a-pj-z q-x (make sure to remove the spaces and dashes to find me). Can't wait to chat!

>>939414136
Whoa, calm down. I’m not rewriting the Gospels or picking a narrative—I’m pointing out that ancient texts often use symbolic language, and scholars note this. Saying something could be symbolic isn’t the same as saying it must be false.

The historical debate over Jesus’ resurrection focuses on his rising, not on Matthew’s dramatic descriptions of other saints. Acknowledging literary devices in the text isn’t being dishonest—it’s reading the material carefully and contextually, which is exactly what historians do.

>>939414423
You’re mistaken to dismiss theology entirely—it may not be empirical science, but it is a discipline with centuries of rigorous reasoning, debate, and analysis. Philosophy and theology both examine questions that science alone can’t answer, like the origin of existence, morality, or consciousness. Using reasoned argument in these areas isn’t ‘dishonest’—it’s applying intellectual rigor to a different domain.

And no, religious people aren’t just ‘making up terms’ to deceive. Faith in the philosophical sense is trust grounded in evidence and reason, not blind obedience. Equating it with wishful thinking ignores the long tradition of careful argumentation: cosmology, moral philosophy, historical testimony, and personal experience all factor into why believers consider their trust rational.

Calling it ‘blind faith’ is a strawman—it’s ignoring the actual reasoning that underlies centuries of serious discussion about God.

>>939415217
>it may not be empirical science,
at least you can admit that
>but it is a discipline with centuries of rigorous reasoning, debate, and analysis
I don't care how long its been around, it's still less rigorous than actual science. you can debate theology for thousands of years, it doesn't make its conclusions any more valid just because they've been discussed, it's still all completely based on wishful thinking and baseless claims stemming only from the texts they derived from

let's do a thought experiement, let's say all of the christian scriptures, the dead sea scrolls, the gospels, the countless iterations of the bible, were all lost to time, burned in fires, whatever. what basis would anyone have, today, right now, have to think the ideas that still existed by word of mouth were valid? you'd have to just accept someone at their word alone, there's nothing else to go on, there's nothing externally verifiable, it is by definition, entirely based on faith, and nothing else

>>939411254
There are literally no arguments that support the existence of a supreme being.

Notice how I don't need paragraph after paragraph to pad this comment.

God is a human invention. And no one has literally any reason to consider it legitimate.

>>939415615
>>939411149
>>939411167
>>939411192
see picrel>>939411254

>>939415615
l2r gg rere?

>>939415217
>I’m pointing out that ancient texts often use symbolic language, and scholars note this. Saying something could be symbolic isn’t the same as saying it must be false.

No, you get to hand wave away any crack in your story whenever it is convenient.

How is saying that the temple and tombs cracked open, saints rose from the dead, and walked the streets and talked to people "symbolic".

You are so dishonest it is infuriating. You are a perfect example of why I became atheist despite being raised Christian, going to church every Sunday, and going to numerous Bible camps etc. Any time I raised valid criticism it was just hand waved away with the most spinless dishonest horseshit. And eventually I was told to stop causing problems. They viewed my honest criticism as problematic. I was supposed to shut up, listen, and not question anything.

For a religion that says you shouldn't lie, you sure lie whenever it is convenient.

Yeah, the other gospels just forgot to mention the zombie horde. It is a minor detail that other authors simply chose to omit.
BUT JESUS RISING FROM THE DEAD IS THE GREATEST MIRACLE EVER!
Just ignore the other 20 guys that did it that day, it isn't even worth a mention.

>>939415872
>subjective experience and wanting it to be true means god exists
yeah, no, that's not how that works

>>939415435
You’re assuming that the value of theology rests entirely on specific texts. But theology and philosophy aren’t merely about memorizing scriptures—they’re about reasoning from experience, observation, and reflection on reality. Even if every scroll and book were lost, the questions remain: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do moral obligations feel binding? Why is consciousness qualitatively different from matter?

Believers don’t just rely on texts—they rely on cumulative reasoning that extends beyond any single document. Cosmology, the problem of existence, fine-tuning, moral realism, consciousness, and historical patterns of religious experience all give reason to consider the possibility of God. Yes, faith is involved, but it’s reasoned faith, not blind acceptance.

The point is: theology isn’t a crutch for wishful thinking; it’s a discipline that wrestles with reality’s deepest questions using reason, logic, and evidence of many kinds. Losing a book doesn’t erase the arguments, the reasoning, or the observable phenomena that inspired them.

>>939415956
>A theist would close by saying: none of these arguments, by themselves, “prove” God beyond doubt. But together they form a cumulative case—converging lines of evidence, like clues in a detective story. One clue may be ambiguous; all of them together point strongly toward design, transcendence, and divinity.

>>939415872
My post was a reply to that one

You don't get to keep pushing the same debunked post after someone rejects it

>>939416039
There is no "logic" to theology stop insulting people.

>>939415950
Look, I’m not ‘hand-waving’ or rewriting the story—I’m explaining how historians and scholars read ancient texts. Extraordinary literary flourishes, symbolic language, and selective emphasis are common in historical writing from that period. Matthew’s mention of other saints rising isn’t ignored because it’s inconvenient; it’s understood as part of the narrative style, not the central historical claim.

The historical debate centers on whether Jesus himself rose, because that’s what is consistently attested across sources and has the most direct historical evidence. Not every dramatic detail in a single Gospel needs to be treated literally for the main claim to be evaluated. Recognizing literary style isn’t lying—it’s careful, critical reading.

It’s understandable that these narrative choices can be frustrating, especially if you were raised being told to accept everything uncritically. But criticism and careful questioning are part of both scholarship and reasoned faith, not its opposite.

>>939410884 (OP)
10 bad arguments don't add up to 1 good one.
Just accept your beliefs are irrational and go from there

>>939411432
He's swapping definitions of faith as needed to suit his current argument

>>939416039
>Why do moral obligations feel binding?
who's morals? there's no universal moral principles, they're all subjective and arbitrary, and vary by culture and person, some don't have any morals
>Why is consciousness qualitatively different from matter?
theology can't answer that in any provable way, it can only speculate, the same as any other discipline, only you can easily argue that science can explain it in more realistic terms, as an emergent behavior of complex systems of neurons that form a biological computer
>all give reason to consider the possibility of God
they give people reasons to think such a thing is possible, but it ends there, thinking something is possible because of ignorance doesn't mean it's true
>theology isn’t a crutch for wishful thinking;
it absolutely is though
>it’s a discipline
lol, no it isn't
>that wrestles with reality’s deepest questions using reason, logic, and evidence
please tell me you're trolling

>>939416090
>You don't get to keep pushing the same debunked post after someone rejects it

That is what these liars do. They get annihilated in a debate, then they simply repeat the same lie tomorrow, pretending the last discussion never happened. They repeat all the shit that was proven false, knowing it is false, and simply hoping the person they are trying to manipulate today doesn't know about those loopholes.

But telling lies is a sin...

>>939411572
>trust in light of evidence and reason
Except there isn't evidence or reason lol

>>939416126
you obviously didn't examine the image, or read the thread.

>>939416126
I’m not insulting anyone—claiming that theology can involve logic and reason is not an attack, it’s a statement of fact. Theology and philosophy have long traditions of structured argumentation, addressing questions like why anything exists, the nature of consciousness, and the grounding of morality. These aren’t answered by faith alone—they require reasoning, reflection, and engagement with evidence.

Just because theology deals with questions that science doesn’t fully answer doesn’t mean it lacks logic. Reasoning about ultimate causes, ethical obligations, or the nature of reality is logical; it simply applies a different set of methods than empirical lab experiments. Dismissing it as illogical ignores centuries of careful thought and debate.

>>939411861
He thinks if he can sufficiently bash science it'll create evidence for God.
(Yes, he is retarded)

>>939416071
>converging lines of evidence
there's no converging evidence, your wanting something to be true doesn't make it true
you're staring at a Rorschach ink blot and see god, when in reality it's just random shapes, you're seeing what you project onto it

>>939415956
so contradiction is the best you have?

>>939415217
>it’s ignoring the actual reasoning that underlies centuries of serious discussion about God
By that you mean "believe or else", luckily for rational thinking yall can't get away with that bullshit anymore lol

>>939416359
best I have for what? I don't have to provide anything, I'm not making any claims
if you're proposing evidence or proof of any gods it's on you to provide it
and subjective experience is not evidence of the supernatural, personal testimony is the worst form of evidence of anything

>>939416175
>Saying the tombs broke open was "symbolic" they didn't REALLY break open.
>Saying numerous saints rose from the dead is symbolic. They didn't REALLY rise from the dead.
>Saying they walked the streets and talked to people was symbolic. They didn't REALLY walk the streets and talk to people.

You are so spineless, manipulative, and dishonest it is revolting.
>The gospels are the gospel truth, except whenever I say they aren't.
>Then it is just "symbolic" according to "scholars"

You also don't cite anything. You get to talk about "scholars" whenever it is convenient. Who is the scholar, where did they say this? You have no source to back anything up.

Scholars say you are a dishonest piece of shit. No, I don't have to cite it. Trust me bro.

>>939416175
>Recognizing literary style isn’t lying
it isn't? so did the events depicted in the books of the bible actually happen or not? why are you pretending like this distinction doesn't matter?
is the story of Adam and Eve literal or just illustrative?
did Noah actually build the Ark and populate it with every animal, or is it just a story?

>>939415615
Claiming there are ‘literally no arguments’ ignores centuries of philosophical and historical reasoning. Arguments for God aren’t just random claims—they include the cosmological argument (why is there something rather than nothing?), the fine-tuning of the universe, the reality of consciousness, moral objectivity, and historical testimony regarding Jesus. Each line of reasoning is independent, but together they form a cumulative case that gives rational grounds for belief.

Calling God a ‘human invention’ doesn’t engage with these arguments—it’s an assertion, not a refutation. You don’t have to accept the conclusions, but dismissing them without consideration is closer to wishful thinking than reasoned skepticism.

>>939416090
>>939416250
Repeating an argument isn’t lying if it hasn’t actually been refuted. You can reject a cumulative case all you want, but that doesn’t invalidate the reasoning behind it. Each line of evidence—cosmology, fine-tuning, morality, consciousness, historical testimony—is independently debated and critiqued; if you haven’t engaged with each point on its own terms, dismissing the whole as a repeated ‘lie’ is just rhetoric, not a refutation.

Calling it manipulation assumes bad faith. A reasoned theist isn’t pretending something is true—they’re presenting arguments that they, and many philosophers over centuries, find compelling. Debating these points honestly means addressing each claim, not declaring the cumulative case ‘debunked’ because you personally reject it.

>>939416468
>>939415872

>>939416735
Pretty fucking convenient there is a nameless "scholar" to back up any opinion you have, every fucking time. You don't need to cite it, provide a link, or anything.

>Trust me bro
>The scholar said so
>He is super smart and knows more than both of us about this topic combined
>Citation? What?

Go fuck yourself with a cactus.

>>939416735
>ignores centuries of philosophical and historical reasoning.
because trying to reason god into existence out of thin air doesn't hold any water, I don't care how many thousands of years you debate it, it's still invalid and self-referential circular reasoning
gaslighting yourself into believing something doesn't mean it's true
>the fine-tuning of the universe, the reality of consciousness
please to ignorance, "I don't know, therefore god"
>moral objectivity,
doesn't exist
>and historical testimony
completely and utterly unreliable. even if you could prove without a shadow of a doubt that a historical Jesus figure lived 2000 years ago, it in no way proves any gods exist, the only thing it corroborates is that he was referenced in some texts that people wrote around that time
>Calling God a ‘human invention’ doesn’t engage with these arguments—it’s an assertion, not a refutation
it's not an assertion, it's a fact, but you're free to somehow prove otherwise

>>939416782
you're just going in circles again, pointing at your subjective experiences as somehow being evidence

>>939416493
You’re conflating critique of literary style with dishonesty. I’m not saying the Gospels can be ignored or rewritten at will—I’m explaining how historians read ancient texts. Scholars like N.T. Wright, Dale Allison, and Bart Ehrman have all discussed the literary and theological framing in the Gospels, noting that extraordinary imagery doesn’t automatically negate the historical claims being made.

Matthew’s mention of saints rising is widely acknowledged as unusual, and yes, it may serve a symbolic or theological purpose rather than being the central historical claim. That doesn’t mean Jesus’ resurrection is dismissed—it’s the point consistently attested across multiple sources.

If you want specifics:

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, discusses how the Gospel writers shaped narratives for theological emphasis.

Dale C. Allison Jr., Resurrecting Jesus, examines historical claims versus literary embellishments.

Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, analyzes Gospel writing styles and historical reliability.

Recognizing narrative technique is not lying—it’s critical engagement. Using scholarly insight doesn’t weaken the case; it strengthens it by showing that even with literary flourish, historians take the core claims seriously.

>>939417131
>Can't cite actual details
>Just says go red these several books
>The answer to your very specific question is buried somewhere in those thousands of pages
>Now go spend a few hundred hours looking for it
>See I cited it!

Fuck you.

>>939417131
>it may serve a symbolic or theological purpose rather than being the central historical claim
who gets to decide which parts are literal historical depictions and which are artistic flourishes or allegories that didn't literally happen?

>>939416262
There is evidence and reason—it’s just not always the kind you can weigh in a lab. Think of the universe’s existence, the fine-tuning of physical constants, consciousness, moral objectivity, and historical testimony regarding Jesus. Each of these is independently debated but collectively forms a cumulative case that gives rational grounds to consider God plausible.

Faith isn’t blind—it’s reasoned trust when certainty is impossible. Just like you trust a friend based on their past actions and character, belief in God is grounded in evaluating evidence and seeing where it points, not in leaping into the dark without thought.

>>939416194
Actually, that’s exactly how cumulative reasoning works. One argument alone may be inconclusive, but when multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion, the overall case becomes much stronger—like clues in a detective story. Cosmology, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality, and historical testimony each provide a piece of the puzzle.

Dismissing them individually doesn’t negate the cumulative weight. Belief in God, when considered in this way, isn’t irrational—it’s a reasoned conclusion based on converging evidence, not a blind leap.

>>939417392
>Each of these is independently debated but collectively forms a cumulative case that gives rational grounds to consider God plausible
how so? and how does it build a cumulative case for the christian god, but not the countless other gods of countless other religions? what about the thousands of Hindu gods?

>>939416468
Fair enough, you’re not making a claim—but you are asserting that belief in God is baseless and that no arguments exist. That’s itself a position, and challenging it isn’t a burden shift—it’s engaging the debate.

Second, subjective experience and personal testimony aren’t presented as standalone proof; they’re part of a cumulative case. Philosophy, cosmology, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality, and historical testimony all contribute. Individual testimonies gain weight when they converge with other independent lines of reasoning, just like multiple eyewitnesses or multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen a case in law.

Dismissal of personal experience as ‘the worst evidence’ ignores how human knowledge often works: much of what we take as fact—history, psychology, even science—relies on observed reports, reasoned inference, and cumulative patterns. Belief in God, reasoned this way, is no different.

>>939417102
no u

>>939417247
I get why that feels frustrating, but it’s not ‘passing the buck.’ Citing scholars isn’t an excuse—it’s pointing to research where historians have done the work of analyzing these texts. If you want the details, yes, you need to look at the sources; that’s how scholarship works.

You wouldn’t dismiss physics papers by saying, ‘go read hundreds of pages for the proof’—you’d engage the arguments. Same here: Wright, Allison, and Ehrman provide detailed reasoning and evidence about the literary style, context, and historical claims in the Gospels. I’m not asking you to take my word for it; I’m pointing to where the critical engagement has already been done.

Recognizing narrative technique doesn’t invalidate the resurrection claim; it clarifies how historians separate literary flourish from the core historical event.

>>939417282
It’s not about ‘deciding’ arbitrarily—it’s about historical method. Scholars evaluate multiple factors: consistency across sources, historical context, genre conventions, linguistic cues, and external corroboration. Literary flourishes, symbolic language, and theological emphasis were common in ancient writings; recognizing them doesn’t erase the historical core.

So when Matthew mentions saints rising, historians ask: is this a central event corroborated elsewhere, or is it dramatic imagery to highlight Jesus’ significance? The consensus is that the resurrection of Jesus himself is the primary historical claim, while extraordinary details around it may serve symbolic or theological purposes. That’s how critical historical analysis separates fact from literary technique.

>>939417550
>Philosophy, cosmology, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality, and historical testimony all contribute
no they don't
philosophy isn't proof or evidence
morals have nothing to do with anything
"historical testimony" of what? that some people met a guy named Jesus? and his body disappeared from a cave? how is that evidence for any gods?
and religion doesn't explain consciousness, it hand-waives it
and if anything cosmology is evidence against the existence of gods, as it is actual science, and provides real-world explanations for what we see in the universe that don't require any supernatural beings

>>939417651
You haven't cited jack fucking shit. You pointed to several thousand pages and said it is in there somewhere. I looked up your first source and it is 817 pages by itself.

You are completely fucking dishonest and a total hypocrite. I hate you, and people like you, with every fiber of my being. I wish I could punch you in your stupid fucking face right now.

You are absolutely passing the buck.

>>939417740
where do these scholars corroborate the historical events of god appearing and talking to everyone?

>>939417462
The cumulative case isn’t about proving any deity exists—it’s about assessing which conception of God best fits the evidence. Cosmology and fine-tuning point to a single, transcendent cause rather than multiple competing deities. Consciousness and moral objectivity suggest an underlying source of mind and value, not thousands of gods acting independently.

Historical testimony regarding Jesus further narrows the focus: the life, death, and claimed resurrection of one historical figure is unique among world religions. Hinduism, for example, describes many gods and avatars, but their narratives lack the same historical anchors outside their own texts. The cumulative case doesn’t prove Christianity conclusively, but it does give reason to consider a single, personal, transcendent God—as described in the Judeo-Christian tradition—more plausible than countless polytheistic alternatives.

>>939417740
so if I write a book that references provable things that happened in history and add supernatural elements, that now means the supernatural elements also actually happened since the historical elements can be proven to be true? what do you think you're actually arguing here?

>>939417040
You’re conflating criticism with outright dismissal. None of these arguments claim to prove God with absolute certainty—they provide rational grounds for consideration, just as any cumulative case in history, philosophy, or science does.

Cosmology and fine-tuning: These aren’t ‘God of the gaps’ arguments. They point to the remarkable order and origin of the universe, which is consistent with a transcendent cause, not random chance.

Consciousness: The subjective, qualitative aspect of experience isn’t explained by purely physical processes alone—it invites consideration of a conscious source beyond matter.

Moral objectivity: Even if you reject moral realism, the universality of human moral intuition still demands an explanation.

Historical testimony: Proving that a historical Jesus lived isn’t a direct proof of God, but it is a piece of the puzzle. Combined with claims of resurrection, the historical record becomes more than just stories—it provides reasoned grounds for evaluating divinity.

Calling God a ‘human invention’ isn’t a refutation—it’s an assertion that ignores the cumulative case. Reasoned belief isn’t self-delusion; it’s careful consideration of multiple independent lines of evidence converging on a plausible conclusion.

>>939417824
>it’s about assessing which conception of God best fits the evidence.
so you admit that it's starting with the conclusion of god must exist, and then working backwards to fit it to what can be observed
>Consciousness and moral objectivity suggest an underlying source of mind and value,
no it doesn't, and you keep repeating this "moral objectivity", there's no such thing
> and claimed resurrection of one historical figure is unique among world religions
lmfao, no it isn't, it isn't even the first such story in human history, holy shit you're delusional
>but their narratives lack the same historical anchors
there's no historical anchor to Christianity. there may have been a real historical figure named Jesus, that in no way anchors any supernatural claims
other gods in other religions also have just as equally plausible ties to real life figures if you bother to read some of them

>>939417741
You’re misrepresenting what a cumulative case means. Philosophy, cosmology, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality, and historical testimony aren’t standalone proofs—they’re independent pieces of evidence that, when considered together, point toward the plausibility of a transcendent cause. You don’t need absolute certainty to have rational grounds for belief.

Philosophy provides frameworks for understanding causality, existence, and the nature of being. It doesn’t prove God like an experiment proves gravity, but it clarifies what kinds of explanations are reasonable.

Cosmology and fine-tuning show that the universe’s existence and precise conditions are highly improbable without some explanatory grounding. Science describes how things happen; it doesn’t answer why there is something rather than nothing.

Consciousness and subjective experience resist reduction to purely physical accounts, suggesting a source beyond matter.

Moral objectivity is observed in shared human intuitions that cannot be explained purely by evolution without appealing to some grounding in value.

Historical testimony regarding Jesus’ life, death, and claimed resurrection provides a specific, well-documented case that aligns with the notion of a supernatural actor.

Individually, each line is suggestive, not conclusive. Together, they form a reasoned, non-arbitrary argument for considering God’s existence plausible—far more than random conjecture or mere wishful thinking.

>>939417812
Trust them bro. They are "scholars" and are super smart. No he can't actually cite a specific page number from their book, or post the comment they made. But the answer is TOOOOOTALLY in that book dude, trust him. And the scholar totally corroborates his position. Trust him bro.

He wouldn't lie, he is a Christian...

>>939417794
I hear your frustration, but let’s separate tone from content. Citing Wright, Allison, and Ehrman isn’t ‘passing the buck’—it’s pointing to the detailed work that already exists. If you want to evaluate the scholarship, yes, it requires reading their books or papers, just as you would with any academic field. Physics, history, or philosophy: no serious discussion expects every argument to be condensed into a paragraph.

The point isn’t to overwhelm you with pages—it’s to show that careful historical analysis has been done, and it’s not based on blind faith. Scholars assess literary style, context, and corroboration to distinguish core historical claims from symbolic or theological framing. That’s the standard method of critical inquiry, and recognizing it isn’t dishonest—it’s how reasoned debate works.

If your goal is to dismiss the resurrection outright, that’s your choice—but claiming that referencing established scholarship is inherently dishonest is simply wrong.

>>939417812
No reputable scholar claims that God literally appeared and spoke to everyone in the streets—that part of Matthew is widely recognized as theological or symbolic embellishment. What scholars do focus on are the historical claims that can be reasonably investigated: for example, that Jesus lived, was crucified under Pilate, and that his followers sincerely believed he was resurrected.

The distinction is between the historical core—events that can be assessed using sources and context—and literary or theological flourish, which communicates meaning or significance rather than literal fact. Recognizing symbolic language doesn’t erase history; it clarifies which elements historians treat as evidence versus interpretive narrative.

>>939417960
>which is consistent with a transcendent cause
by what metric? what proven base case are you comparing it to of a known transcendent cause? what?
> the universality of human moral intuition
you're just making things up now, there is no such thing. the only underlying moral principles are centered around what is deemed best for a human community for its collective survival, but even then you find differences in different societies and cultures as to what these moral values are specifically. there is no single collective shared set of moral principles, they can vary wildly, which is the opposite of what you would expect if morals were handed down from on high from a single creator god
>historical Jesus lived isn’t a direct proof of God
or even indirect proof
>it provides reasoned grounds for evaluating divinity.
no it doesn't, there an unsubstantiated claims of supernatural acts involving a possible historical person, it's no more believable than a fantasy novel with wizards and dragons
>Calling God a ‘human invention’ isn’t a refutation—it’s an assertion that ignores the cumulative case
this "cumulative case" is very weak and subjective at best, and isn't enough to refute the fact of god being a human invention, by virtue of ever reference to any gods is strictly from human created artifacts such as writings and other art, there is nothing external to these that serve as direct observable evidence

>>939418117
>they’re independent pieces of evidence that, when considered together, point toward the plausibility of a transcendent cause
none of that is true, I already explained why, your AI isn't actually digesting any of these, and you're not smart enough to understand any of this
this is getting boring, you just keep pasting the same stuff over and over, this is just going in circles

>>939418315
Post an actual comment from a "scholar" that explains why Matthew talked about numerous saints rising from the dead along with Jesus and why no other gospel felt it was worth mentioning, or shut the fuck up.

Don't cite a nameless "scholar"
Don't point to a massive book that is only available in hard copy for $50 and say it is in there somewhere.
Put up, or shut up, you liar piece of shit.

>>939417910
The historical method doesn’t deny the supernatural; it simply evaluates what can be corroborated. The absence of independent verification for certain events doesn’t prove they didn’t happen—it just means historians can’t treat them as certain.

The approach is cautious, not dismissive. Scholars can still argue that the best explanation for the combination of historical facts—Jesus’ life, death, and the rapid growth of his movement—is that something extraordinary occurred, without claiming they can empirically prove every miraculous claim. Historical rigor helps us filter the evidence, but it doesn’t rule out the possibility that the supernatural intervened—it just separates what is verifiable from what is extraordinary, allowing for reasoned inference rather than blind acceptance.

>>939418315
>hat part of Matthew is widely recognized as theological or symbolic embellishment
so, it was made up and didn't happen then? that checks out
>What scholars do focus on are the historical claims that can be reasonably investigated
that's cool and all, but corroborating that people and some events written about seemed to have happened does nothing except verify the time period that they were written in
if I write a fictional novel that references current events, that doesn't mean the fictional portions of my story also happened just because it sits along side factual elements, it's amazing that you are unable to understand this distinction

>>939418110
You’re misunderstanding the approach. The cumulative case isn’t starting with ‘God must exist’—it starts with independent observations: the universe exists and is finely tuned, consciousness exists, and humans share common moral intuitions. The question is which explanation best accounts for these observations. A single transcendent source fits these facts better than thousands of competing gods acting independently.

Regarding moral objectivity, even if you deny it philosophically, the near-universal human sense of right and wrong still cries out for explanation—naturalistic accounts alone struggle to justify it.

As for the historical record, yes, Jesus may not be the first miraculous story in human history, but his case is unique in that we have multiple, early sources attesting to his life, death, and followers’ claims of resurrection, including sources hostile to Christianity. That historical grounding is stronger than what most other religious figures outside Christianity have, making the Christian narrative uniquely anchored in verifiable events.

It’s not proof; it’s rational inference from converging lines of evidence. The cumulative case simply asks: given what we know about the world, which explanation makes the most sense? Christianity, centered on one historical figure with specific claims, is more plausible than countless polytheistic alternatives that lack equivalent historical grounding.

>>939418561
Isn't it amazing how the gospels are 100% absolutely true and the word of God, except when they aren't?

>>939418600
>and humans share common moral intuitions.
you keep repeating this lie, why?

>>939418521
>Scholars can still argue that the best explanation for the combination of historical facts—Jesus’ life, death, and the rapid growth of his movement—is that something extraordinary occurred
I would conclude the same thing if I read a story with supernatural elements
but to reiterate, that doesn't mean the text written actually happened as written
I could come to the same conclusion reading Lord of the Rings if it was presented as historical record

>>939418521
why would these scholars conclude something extraordinary happened when nothing like it has ever happened since? you'd think if there was a creator god out there we'd see extraordinary things happening all the time, but for some reason it only happened once, thousands of years ago, in one corner of the world, only seen by a few people, and never again
seems rather suspicious and hard to believe to me, akin to Joseph Smith supposedly translating the word of god directly, but when he tried to do it again, the translation came out differently, as if he was just making it up as he went

>>939419325
Isn't it crazy how now that billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets, the frequency of miracles, ghosts, and supernatural shit is suddenly zero?

I wouldn't worry about it...

Guys, it doesn't matter that the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the core miracle/story to the entire religion, makes no sense and is full of loopholes and contradicts itself. It's totally legit and the gospel truth (except the parts that are symbolic and didn't actually happen and were simply the author's embellishments to the story).

>>939417392
>There is evidence and reason
Lying is a sin, you must not be a Christian

>Think of the universe’s existence, the fine-tuning of physical constants, consciousness,
What about them? You're not knowing doesn't mean god did it.
>moral objectivity, and historical testimony regarding Jesus
No such things exist

>Faith isn’t blind
In the context of theology, yes it is.
>it’s reasoned trust when certainty is impossible. Just like you trust a friend based on their past actions and character,
>past actions and character,
Correct, that would not be blind faith, but trust, because there's evidence and reason for it. Unlike for god

>Dismissing them individually doesn’t negate the cumulative weight
Except it does, like how if any premise of a syllogism is false or rejected the conclusion does not follow

>>939411149
>>939411167
Nigger, you forgot to change your name.

>>939418490
Was that also the gospel where there was a zombie uprising to then go home and party with the living?
You'd think people would mention something like that....

>>939410884 (OP)
>here's a bajillion reasons why god is real
>but it's the CHRISTIAN god btw it's jesus :^)

it's the hindu pantheon of gods and goddesses.

>>939420484
Yes that is what I am referencing. I cited it here.
>>939413242

He just said the "scholars" brush it off as "symbolic". Which scholars? Don't worry about it. What exactly did they say about it and exactly what was symbolic about it? Don't worry about it. Trust him bro. The "scholars" back up every opinion he has, but he doesn't need to explain how they back it up.

How convenient...

>>939411149
Accidentally showed that even the "counter rebuttals" is just more biased AI made by the same person arguing the original point.
You do know that an argument you're having in your head with nobody is almost the namesake for a straw man, you're building your own straw man to argue against, except in this case, it's more severe. It's more like a Strawmonculous. You're creating a fake person to argue against, then rebutting your own fake arguments; completely ignoring that unconscious bias will always be present, whether in your training data for your model due to an unwillingness or inability to input unbiased data/prompts, or in your own report of that data.

>>939420544
Zeus is the true god, you liar! You will pay for your blasphemy.

I dont understand all of this arguing. God literally talks to people. He corrupts some people and he enlightens others.

OP what do you think of hooking yourself up to mind reading tech. Do you think memories of God talking to you will surface? Im so excited for mind reading. I know that God talks to me and several other people for a fact because theyve spoken of it. God has even told us each others secrets.

I cant wait for mind reading tech to proliferate.

God literally talks to the sand niggers and tell them to kill christians... all for the purpose of seeing who are better stronger people.

God's influence permeates far beyond the ethereal into the concrete arenas of geopolitics, ideology, and cultural evolution, acting as a potent force multiplier in global affairs. For example, in select Arab populations, He implants targeted desires, doctrinal imperatives, and motivational frameworks—such as the fervent chants of "Death to America"—not as acts of petty malice or partisan bias against our nation, but as calibrated provocations designed to probe the mettle of competing powers. This divine intervention shapes mindsets that may clash with core American principles of freedom, democracy, and self-determination, yet it adheres to a higher logic of equitable testing. God's approach is one of absolute impartiality: He neither elevates nor diminishes any race or nation arbitrarily; instead, He engineers scenarios where each must earn its place through strategic acumen, societal cohesion, and unyielding perseverance. From the vantage point of national security, this constitutes an overlooked yet pervasive vector of external influence, where adversarial behaviors stem from a centralized, adaptive intelligence orchestrating the grand chessboard of human history.

God has revealed to me his GEOMETRY. He says that he is an orb. His awareness and mind are ethereally connected to this form; allowing him to see all of the orb at once. My own experiences position me uniquely as a conduit for this analysis, having received revelations and mental IMAGERY referring to God's GEOMETRY. These communications have illuminated God's overarching framework: the universe as a vast extension of His omnipotent will, where matter and energy function as His instrumental "hands," His consciousness resides transcendentally above creation, and His Holy Spirit serves as the internal guiding voice within His own divine mind—exactly like the "still small voice" He imparts to us. I, myself, am but a manifestation of His manipulations, a sentient node in this system. Just like you (even if you don't know it.) He says that matter and energy are his "hands." If you imagine moving your hand around, then you can imagine how God moves his matter and energy around within his orbicular body. Except God has an additional movement vector... this is called "spawning." All he has to do to spawn in any matter or energy is apply effort. Existence really is as simple as that. When it comes to signs of evolution, God tells me that all evidence of evolution from the big bang to carbon dating is spawned in by him to allow for an "appropriate" belief system for silent minded men to believe in. The very concept of the "universe" (derived from "uni" meaning one and "verse" meaning word or utterance) underscores that all of reality is a singular expression of God's will, a cohesive narrative scripted by His divine command.

>>939421296
>>939421373

I hate the way AI writes so damn much. Am I really going to have to be spammed with this bullshit for the rest of my life?

Uncle Ted was right.

>>939421469
ya but its tru tho. ask God yourself

>>939420363
Very observant, although I wasn't trying to hide that. I have a few characters I play, and a few actors have taken up the my names at various times, or maybe just the one, never can tell on an anonymous website.

I think that when humans have perfect mind reading tech that the researchers and scholars will be able to see God's will for what it is.

If you hook up a Christian who talks to god you will see Gods true form. His true persona.

But when you hook up an african monkey man you will that his sovereign is lord babadoo

When you hook up a sand nigger you will see that his "true creator" is named "Allah"

When you hook up a god fearing chinese you will see that his sovereign is called Pangu.

Researchers will be able to SEE gods infulence amongst the different races.

All gods you hear of besides the christian God are just personas that the christian god is putting on for the many races and nations.

Mind reading these people will FORCE god to reveal this truth to the researchers.

God is going to talk to the silent minded people through the people that God talks to.

>>939421851
In just two more weeks right?

>>939421469
>big words hurt ma brain

>>939421992
whacha mean?

>>939410884 (OP)
There is still no proof, in this thread or anywhere. This is just a bombardment of anecdotal stuff and logical fallacies. I respect your right to faith, but still wait for proof. I also respectfully remind you that the rule structure of your religion doesn't apply to atheists. Or to members of religions other than yours. Faith, by its nature has to be an "opt-in". I have not opted in. I hope you find peace and don't feel that you need salvation especially if it by your own works. I have studied lots of religions and think there is a strong argument that all the Abrahamic faiths could be defined as "different kinds of Judaism" in the same way we have squished a bunch of similar faiths together and called it "Hinduism". If I were a younger, troll-ier me, I would be on here arguing that everyone should worship Shiva or Kali, as we have older evidence of them than we do of Yahweh. He's not even the oldest god mentioned by name in the Bible - there is a distinct pantheon of gods, of which Yhwh is a member.

>>939421851
These people are called "liars" and "schizophrenics".

>>939410884 (OP)
This thread is a remarkable achievement though, in that it only has three instances of the "n word". This might be a 4Chan record.

>>939410884 (OP)
I'm not going to argue with AIslop. drop the pretense and then maybe we can have a discussion. however, I will say that
>1. god is presupposed as a foregone conclusion AKA god of the gaps AKA post hoc rationale AKA confirmation bias
>2. nature is not orderly, and is in fact very chaotic. anything can look like it was the product of intelligent design if you want to perceive it that way badly enough. this is just more wishful thinking/confirmation bias
>3. consciousness (software) is pretty much a function of the brain (hardware). no, humankind doesn't fully understand it, and may never, but that doesn't mean that "god did it" is a satisfactory explanation (it's not)
>4. there are no objective morals, everything is relative. I know it makes your head hurt, but you can justify pretty much anything under the right circumstances
>5. beauty has plenty of survival necessity, what are you smoking to suggest that isn't the case???
I won't read the rest because, as I said, I won't engage with AIslop. still, I hope you understand why, at least at a glance, your arguments are not compelling. I also would like you to know that I respect your beliefs, believe in what you want.

>>939422035
AI is unnecessarily verbose. It adds an extra 40% extra words that add no content like some highschool kid trying to reach the minimum word count limit on an essay.

>>939424117
(NtA)
That or a drawn out hr email where the tldr is you're fired

>>939410884 (OP)
So what about blacks?

>>939421727
Schizophrenia or meth?

>>939424908
No thank you.

>>939412389
You’re treating the Genesis flood account like a 21st-century history or science textbook, which misses the point of how ancient texts work. The Noah story isn’t meant to answer modern zoology, genetics, or anthropology—it’s a theological narrative about judgment, mercy, and covenant.

Ancient people used symbolic storytelling and hyperbole to communicate meaning. The details about animals, repopulation, and genealogy can be read figuratively or theologically, not literally. Many Jewish and Christian thinkers—including Augustine centuries before Darwin—already interpreted Genesis non-literalistically.

Even if you take it literally, you’re framing it with assumptions that don’t match the worldview of the text. Ancient readers weren’t thinking in terms of continents, species differentiation, or modern genetics. They were asking: what is the relationship between God, humanity, and creation?

So no—the story isn’t ‘horseshit.’ It’s just not meant to be reduced to a crude biology lesson. It carries theological weight regardless of how one reads the mechanics.

>>939418387
You’re asking for a ‘proven base case’ of a transcendent cause, but that’s a category error. By definition, a transcendent cause is beyond natural comparison—you don’t measure it against other transcendent causes like you measure chemical reactions in a lab. The point is explanatory power: naturalism struggles to explain why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is so precisely ordered, or why conscious experience exists at all. Invoking a transcendent source makes sense as a philosophical inference, not as a repeatable lab experiment.

On morality: yes, cultural practices vary, but there are underlying commonalities—no society prizes betrayal, cowardice, or wanton cruelty as virtues. The near-universal core of principles like fairness, courage, and care suggests more than arbitrary social construction. That’s what moral objectivity means: not uniformity in detail, but a shared moral grammar.

On history: you’re right that proving Jesus existed isn’t itself proof of divinity. The argument is that the convergence of early, multiple, and hostile sources attesting to extraordinary claims makes Christianity stand apart from other religious myths. Fantasy novels don’t inspire explosive social movements rooted in eyewitness testimony and martyrs who refused to recant.

Finally, dismissing the ‘cumulative case’ as weak because writings and artifacts are human products misses the point. Virtually everything we know about the past, science, or philosophy comes through human-created records. The question isn’t whether it’s human—it’s whether the convergence of independent evidence makes belief rational. The case for God doesn’t rest on one proof, but on the combined weight of multiple considerations pointing beyond materialism.

>>939418434
You keep claiming it’s ‘the same stuff’ because you’re dismissing without engaging. Explaining why something counts as cumulative reasoning isn’t repetition—it’s clarification. Dismissing philosophy, cosmology, consciousness, morality, and history as irrelevant doesn’t make them irrelevant; it just shows you don’t want to wrestle with them.

If you really thought the arguments were empty, you’d show why they fail collectively, not just wave them off with insults. Saying ‘you’re not smart enough’ isn’t a counter-argument—it’s avoidance.

The cumulative case approach is how reasoning works in every other domain: no single clue solves a crime scene, but taken together, the evidence can justify a rational conclusion. You wouldn’t call that circular or arbitrary—you’d call it inference to the best explanation.

If you want to walk away, that’s fine. But don’t confuse boredom or hostility with having actually refuted the arguments.
>>939415872

>>939418721
Calling it a ‘lie’ doesn’t erase the data. Cross-cultural studies in anthropology and moral psychology (like Jonathan Haidt’s work on moral foundations theory, or Donald Brown’s catalog of human universals) show that while cultures differ on application, humans everywhere share core moral intuitions—things like prohibitions against unjustified killing, valuing fairness, care for kin, honoring reciprocity, etc.

That doesn’t mean every society interprets or applies them the same way, but the fact that these themes keep reappearing across time, geography, and culture is exactly what needs explaining. Why do humans, despite vast differences, converge on recognizable moral frameworks at all?

You can say ‘evolution and survival,’ but that itself raises the question of why morality presents itself to us not just as pragmatic instinct, but as obligation—as something we ought to follow. That sense of normativity is stubbornly resistant to reduction.

So the claim isn’t a fabrication—it’s an observation that cries out for interpretation.

>>939418700
That’s a strawman. No serious theologian or biblical scholar says ‘100% literal at all times, except when convenient.’ The claim is that the gospels are true in what they intend to convey. Ancient authors often used historical narrative, but also symbolic and theological language. Recognizing genre—whether poetry, parable, history, or apocalyptic vision—is not ‘picking and choosing,’ it’s just good reading practice.

Nobody accuses people of dishonesty when they understand that a parable like the Good Samaritan is meant to convey moral truth, not a police report. The same principle applies: truth isn’t always the same thing as literalism.

>>939418905
The difference is that with Lord of the Rings, we know it’s a work of fiction because we can identify the author, the context, and the literary intent. With the gospels, we’re dealing with documents written within living memory of the events, tied to a real historical figure whose existence is widely accepted by historians, and connected to a movement that rapidly spread despite persecution.

So yes—you’re right that reading any text with supernatural elements doesn’t automatically mean the supernatural happened. But the gospels aren’t like Middle Earth; they’re rooted in real places, real rulers, real cultural conflicts, and a real executed man named Jesus. That grounding makes the extraordinary claims worth taking seriously, even if one ultimately doubts them. It’s not the same category as pure fantasy.

>>939419325
>>939419529
The fact that miracles aren’t repeatable on demand isn’t an argument against them—it’s what makes them extraordinary. If they were happening constantly, they’d just be part of the natural order and no longer ‘miraculous.’

As for the ‘HD cameras’ point: absence of a viral video doesn’t equal proof of absence. Billions of people today still report near-death experiences, inexplicable healings, or events they interpret as supernatural. You can dismiss all of those as fabrication or error, but that’s just another assumption.

What historians argue is that something unique happened around Jesus that sparked a movement unlike anything else in antiquity. Comparing that to Joseph Smith actually reinforces the point: Mormonism had a charismatic founder, but within a century it fractured and localized. Christianity, by contrast, exploded across the Roman Empire despite persecution and without military power. That demands an explanation—and ‘they just made it up’ doesn’t fully account for the historical data.

>>939419943
Caricaturing the resurrection as ‘full of loopholes’ ignores how historical study actually works. Ancient texts often differ in details—that’s normal for eyewitness-style reports (even modern court testimonies vary), but that doesn’t erase the core event. The consistent through-line across all the gospels is the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances.

Calling some elements ‘symbolic’ isn’t special pleading either—it’s recognizing that ancient writers used both literal and figurative language, just like we do today. Nobody thinks the Psalms stop being meaningful because of poetic imagery, or that Revelation is invalid because it uses apocalyptic symbolism.

The question isn’t whether every detail is woodenly literal, but whether the central claim—that Jesus really rose—has historical plausibility. And that’s what even skeptical scholars admit sparked Christianity’s explosive rise. That deserves more serious engagement than a sarcastic hand-wave.

>>939420113
You’re conflating two different things: (1) absolute proof, and (2) rational evidence. Philosophy, history, and science outside the lab still work with probability, inference, and best explanation. Saying ‘you don’t know, therefore God’ would be a fallacy—but the arguments I listed aren’t gaps, they’re positive considerations: the universe’s beginning, its fine-tuned constants, the mystery of consciousness, the pull toward moral reality, and testimony about the resurrection. Each of these on its own can be debated, but the question is whether together they point toward something deeper than materialism.

As for faith: the analogy to trusting a friend still holds. You don’t demand 100% certainty before you trust someone—you weigh character, patterns, and testimony. That’s not blind, it’s reasonable. The same principle applies to God. Dismissing the cumulative case by rejecting premises one by one misses how inference works: a courtroom doesn’t throw out a case just because each piece of evidence can be doubted individually; it asks what they add up to. That’s the logic here.

>>939418561
Recognizing that some parts of Matthew are symbolic or theological doesn’t automatically dismiss the possibility of genuine supernatural events—it just highlights that historians weigh different types of claims differently. Historical-critical methods aim to identify which events can be independently corroborated, like Jesus’ crucifixion, while still allowing room for extraordinary claims to be considered philosophically or theologically.

So yes, fictional embellishment exists, but that doesn’t mean everything outside the verifiable core is automatically false. The resurrection of Jesus, for instance, is a unique claim tied to historical witnesses and early community belief. Scholars can analyze its plausibility, investigate context, and consider the cumulative case without reducing it to pure myth. Treating symbolic elements responsibly doesn’t negate the possibility of real supernatural acts—it just separates literary devices from claims that can be evaluated for historical credibility.

>>939420965
You clearly have limited reading comprehension.

>>939431592

> The resurrection of Jesus, for instance, is a unique claim tied to historical witnesses and early community belief

false. We only have Paul who claims this, and even his claim is a vision, and he can't even tell us if he had a physical experience or mental one;

>"And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows"


All the other "witnesses" Paul mentions, nowhere does it say how Jesus appeared to them; Did Jesus talk to them, Did he appear more than once? how long did he appear for? appeals to tradition don't mean anything.

>>939431898
You’re right that Paul’s description doesn’t give us a full picture of Jesus’ appearances. But the point isn’t that we have exhaustive eyewitness accounts with every detail—it’s that multiple independent sources, including Paul’s letters and the Gospels, converge on the claim that Jesus appeared to others after his death. Paul explicitly references appearances to “more than five hundred brothers at once” (1 Corinthians 15:6), indicating a broader witness base, not just his own vision.

The historical claim isn’t predicated on every interaction or dialogue being recorded—it’s that early communities were willing to stake their lives on the belief that something extraordinary occurred. The cumulative testimony of early followers, combined with the rapid formation and perseverance of the movement under persecution, gives reason to take the claim seriously as a unique event, even if the mechanics of the appearances remain debated.

Appeals to tradition matter here not as unquestionable proof but as evidence that the belief was rooted in something experienced by a community, not just a later myth. The goal isn’t to provide a fully detailed report, but to assess whether the event plausibly happened given the historical and social context.

>>939410884 (OP)
Of course she exists, she has a temple where she lives and everything. Fun fact: ducklings are common offering to give her because she eats duck eggs
Don't know why you'd post a picture of some dirty Jew. He isn't real

God is real but having responsibility is boring
I never asked to emulate the creator, power is a double edged sword thus I revel in experience and suffering to feel God's love instead
for if I felt the real presence of God it would destroy me

Salvation may wait for no one but it's gonna wait for me, because the ashes of whatever is left of me will die and darkness then resurrect in light

>>939432065
While it's true that Paul and the Gospels reference post-mortem appearances of Jesus, this convergence doesn't necessarily constitute strong historical evidence. The key issue is that these sources are not truly independent in the way that historical verification requires. Paul's letters predate the Gospels, and the Gospel writers were clearly influenced by earlier traditions, including Paul's. This interconnectedness undermines the claim of multiple, independent attestations.

Furthermore, Paul's reference to “more than five hundred brothers at once” (1 Corinthians 15:6) lacks corroboration. He gives no names, no location, and no details—and no other source, including the Gospels, confirms this mass appearance. It's essentially an unverified claim. In historical methodology, such a claim would be treated with skepticism, especially when there's no opportunity to cross-examine or assess the nature of the experience.

The argument that early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs does not prove the truth of the beliefs themselves. People across numerous religions and ideologies have died for beliefs we would not consider historically true. Sincerity of belief is not the same as historicity. Early martyrdom may reflect conviction, but conviction can arise from psychological, social, or visionary experiences—not necessarily from verifiable events.

Lastly, the appeal to “tradition” as evidence of a communal experience risks circular reasoning. Traditions can form and solidify rapidly, especially under the influence of charismatic leaders, strong group identity, or apocalyptic expectation. We see many examples in history of vibrant religious movements forming around unverifiable or legendary events—without the events themselves having to be historical.

In sum, the cumulative case presented may explain the origin of Christian belief, but not necessarily the historical reality of post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

>>939432458
>I revel in experience and suffering to feel God's love
the fuck is that supposed to even mean?

>>939422890
I understand what you’re saying about proof and the “opt-in” nature of faith. The point of the arguments I’ve presented isn’t to force belief or claim absolute proof—faith by its nature isn’t mathematical certainty. It’s about building a cumulative case: historical, philosophical, and experiential evidence that makes belief plausible and rational for those who choose to engage with it.

I also agree that the Abrahamic faiths share common roots, and that Yahweh didn’t appear in a vacuum—there’s clear continuity with earlier Near Eastern deities. That doesn’t automatically disprove God; it shows that humans have long wrestled with questions of ultimate reality, morality, and transcendence, which points to the possibility that something real is being grasped through these traditions.

Regarding older gods or alternative pantheons, the argument for God I make isn’t necessarily tied to cultural primacy or age—it’s about the convergence of philosophical, moral, and historical clues that suggest a transcendent source. The cumulative case doesn’t insist you must “opt-in”; it simply proposes that the existence of a God is rationally defensible and worth considering.

Faith isn’t coercion; it’s reasoned trust in light of evidence and reflection. Whether you accept it or not, the discussion isn’t about forcing belief—it’s about exploring whether the case for divinity is stronger than many skeptics assume.

>>939432065
>it’s that multiple independent sources, including Paul’s letters and the Gospels, converge on the claim that Jesus appeared to others after his death

Correct; but you can't infer a resurrection from that, furthermore the four gospels each presents the resurrection different from the others, and you've already admitted that, at least Matthew contains material that isn't necessarily historical; so I could just dismiss Matthew's "witness" as a theological accessory.

Did Jesus appear to the 500 all at once or individually? I'm willing to believe 500 people claimed to have seen Jesus, but it's not the same if they saw him in dreams, as physically being with him.

>gives reason to take the claim seriously as a unique event

Not really; people believe wrong things all the time.

> but as evidence that the belief was rooted in something experienced by a community
It doesn't matter if ultimately they were wrong.

>>939423525
I appreciate your honesty and the respectful tone, even if you don’t want to engage fully. Let me clarify a few points:

The arguments I’ve presented aren’t meant to presuppose God as a foregone conclusion—they are intended as a cumulative case. Each line of reasoning is independent: cosmology, consciousness, fine-tuning, historical testimony, and moral reasoning each point toward the plausibility of a transcendent cause. None are meant to “fill gaps” but to explore patterns and evidence that might otherwise go unexplained.

While nature has chaotic elements, the fact that physical constants and laws allow for a coherent, life-permitting universe is remarkable and often cited as evidence of fine-tuning. Seeing order in complexity doesn’t require forcing it—it’s an observation that invites philosophical reflection.

Consciousness is indeed correlated with the brain, but that doesn’t fully explain subjective experience—why there is something it is like to experience. Some argue this points toward a deeper or transcendent grounding of mind, though it’s not proof in the empirical sense.

Objective morality is debated, but the argument isn’t that everyone experiences it identically—rather, the existence of moral intuition, even in part, raises questions about its source.

Beauty and aesthetic experience may have survival value, but our human capacity to recognize beauty far exceeds pure survival needs in ways that some argue hint at something beyond mere biological function.

I’m not here to coerce belief, only to show that there are multiple lines of reasoning that together make the question of God worth considering. Even if none compel you, they form a cumulative framework that some find rational and meaningful.

>>939432553
feeling suffering is feeling alive
every sensation is a small form of suffering to have tactile feedback

otherwise you would just be a unborn fetus in homeostasis

>>939432666
>feeling suffering is feeling alive
to live is to suffer, that's the nature of existence
has nothing to do with any gods or "god's love"

>>939432597
>furthermore the four gospels each presents the resurrection different from the others
in terms of the gospels, they really only count as one source
Matthew and Luke copied extensively from Mark (sometimes word for word, something changing things to match their own theology), and John seems to have been aware of all three prior gospels
of course, these are the names that were attributed to the gospels by the early church, they were written and circulated anonymously; we have no idea who wrote them, but they weren't eyewitnesses or companions of eyewitnesses, like church tradition would like people to believe

>>939432754
like you would know what zeitgeist is
the metaphysics of innate being
meditation of Astral Thaumaturgy that Exist beyond the 12th Hierarchy

>>939432464
You raise valid points about source independence and the limits of historical reconstruction—but let’s unpack this carefully.

First, while Paul and the Gospel writers share some traditions, the content of their accounts still demonstrates significant variation in perspective, emphasis, and detail. Historical methodology doesn’t require absolute independence in the modern scientific sense; it looks for converging attestations from sources that weren’t copying one another verbatim. The fact that multiple communities, including Paul’s circle and the Gospel authors, recount post-mortem appearances in different ways strengthens, rather than undermines, the historical plausibility.

Second, regarding the “more than five hundred brothers at once” (1 Corinthians 15:6), it’s true we lack names and specifics. But even unverified, it reflects a claim that a large group witnessed something extraordinary. Historians routinely treat such claims as part of assessing what early communities believed, especially when corroborated by independent strands of tradition. Skepticism is appropriate, but dismissing the claim entirely ignores that Paul was writing close in time to the events and appealing to witnesses who were presumably known to his audience.

Third, martyrdom and willingness to die don’t prove an event occurred—but they do demonstrate the intensity of conviction. Psychological or social explanations are possible, yes—but in most historical cases, people don’t consistently die for what they know to be deliberate falsehoods. The behavior of early Christians indicates that they genuinely believed something extraordinary happened, which is itself an important historical datum.

>>939432464
Finally, appeals to tradition aren’t circular when used carefully. They provide evidence of communal belief rooted in experiences that were compelling enough to preserve, propagate, and risk lives over. Traditions may evolve, but the existence of a tradition, especially under persecution, is still meaningful for historical assessment.

In sum, the goal isn’t to reconstruct every dialogue or miracle in detail—it’s to evaluate whether, given the historical context, the claim of post-mortem appearances is plausible. Multiple converging attestations, early communal belief, and the readiness to endure persecution all point to an event that left a tangible mark on history, even if every detail remains debated.

>>939410884 (OP)
Ah cher, dat’s a nice stew of fancy talk, but let ol’ Boudreaux stir da pot a bit. You say all dem arguments together make a case for God, mais dat don’t make ‘em true, non! Just 'cause you got five weak roux don’t make a strong gumbo. The Big Bang? Maybe da universe popped in without no help—don’t mean Papa Bon Dieu stirred it up. Fine-tunin’? Maybe we just da lucky shrimp in da pot that didn’t boil. Consciousness? Just ‘cause we don’t know da recipe don’t mean it’s divine sauce. Morals? We Cajuns know right from wrong without needin’ stone tablets. And beauty? Mais, I seen beauty in a crawfish boil, but I ain’t gonna say it's proof of Heaven! It all tastes nice, but ain’t proof—it’s just good seasoning. Belief’s fine, cher, but don’t call it gumbo when it’s just a handful o’ spices.

>>939432887
Now let me be clear: belief, no matter how fervent, does not establish fact. In law, as in history, we weigh evidence—not passion. The variations between Paul’s writings and the Gospels may reflect divergent traditions, but variation does not equal verification. Converging testimony must be critically examined for source dependence and reliability, not merely presumed credible because it's repeated.

Paul’s claim of “five hundred” is hearsay—without names, corroboration, or documentation. In court, such a statement wouldn’t hold water, and history ought not give it special privilege. As for the timing, being “close in time” to an event does not absolve a claim from scrutiny, especially when social and religious motivations may shape the telling.

Martyrdom is tragic—but sincerity is not evidence of truth. People die for causes, not just facts. The early Christians believed deeply, but belief alone cannot serve as a foundation for historical certainty, let alone legal precedent.

>>939432887
>>939432905
dontcha just hate it when ChatGPT gives you too many characters and you have to split your copy-pasting into multiple posts?
you enormous fucking faggot

>>939432597
You’re right that Paul and the Gospels don’t provide exhaustive details about every appearance or interaction, and Matthew does include material that some scholars view as theological embellishment. That doesn’t, however, invalidate the broader convergence: multiple early sources—Paul’s letters, Mark, Luke, and John—report post-mortem appearances in different ways.

The claim isn’t that we can reconstruct exactly how Jesus appeared to everyone, or whether 500 saw him physically or in visions. The point is that early communities consistently report extraordinary experiences that they interpreted as encounters with a risen Jesus. Even if individual interpretations vary, the repeated and independent nature of the claims makes it historically significant.

It’s true that people can believe things that are mistaken—but historians also look at why groups believed something. Here, we see widespread, early, and costly conviction: followers were willing to face persecution, imprisonment, and death for the truth of what they claimed to witness. That pattern suggests that they genuinely experienced something extraordinary, whether fully understood or not.

So while the mechanics of the appearances remain debated, the cumulative weight of multiple attestations, early and broad communal belief, and the high stakes involved give reason to take the event seriously as a historically plausible occurrence, even if we can’t reconstruct every detail.

what makes you think anyone bothers reading these walls of text you paste here? how do you think this is at all a valuable use of time, or a remotely effective method of discourse, of you just pasting blobs of text your AI spits out?

>>939433032
Well hey there, kiddos! Let’s put on our thinking caps and talk about BIG stories—like the one where lots of people said they saw Jesus after he died! Now, that sounds amazing, but let’s ask the magic question we ask at every story time: “Is it real, or just really, really believed?”

Now, just ‘cause different people told the same kind of story doesn’t mean it actually happened, right? Imagine if four kids at recess said they saw a dragon behind the slide—ooooh! But then we find out they all heard it from the same rumor, or really wanted it to be true... does that make it a real dragon? Nope!

And sure, people stood up for what they believed—super brave! But guess what? People in all kinds of religions have done that, and they don’t all believe the same thing!

So let’s clap for imagination... and keep asking questions!

I don't trust paul but the only thing he has in common in Christ is spreading John 6:47

>>939433118
he either bought a 4chan pass and uses the paid ChatGPT API to programatically post his slop, or he's just deeply mentally ill and lonely and does it manually
i'm not sure which scenario is more sad

>>939432995
You’re correct that belief alone doesn’t establish historical fact, and scrutiny is essential. But the historical question isn’t whether early Christians were right or wrong—it’s whether their claims and convictions reflect something extraordinary that occurred.

Even if Paul and the Gospel writers share some traditions, they report post-mortem appearances differently—Mark, Luke, John, and Paul vary in timing, location, and participants. Historians assess such converging, non-verbatim accounts as meaningful, not as proof in a scientific sense, but as evidence of experiences that communities interpreted as real. Absolute independence isn’t required; it’s the variation and early proximity to events that lend historical plausibility.

The “more than five hundred” claim may lack names or full verification, but it reflects a collective memory of extraordinary experiences preserved within communities. Skepticism is warranted, yet dismissing it entirely overlooks the context: Paul wrote close to the events, appealing to witnesses known to his audience, which strengthens the claim’s historical weight.

Martyrdom doesn’t prove truth, but consistent willingness to die for a belief is historically significant. People rarely sacrifice their lives for what they consciously know to be false. The intensity and coherence of early Christian conviction suggest that they experienced something compelling, even if the exact nature of it remains debated.

Finally, traditions aren’t circular evidence if used carefully—they reveal what communities believed and why those beliefs persisted under threat. The mere existence of widespread, early traditions, combined with willingness to endure persecution, offers historians reason to consider that extraordinary events—whatever their precise nature—occurred and left a tangible mark on history.

>>939433148
which is funny, because of all the gospels, John probably contains the least historical material that actually goes back to Jesus

>>939432995
So the point isn’t to reconstruct every detail or miracle—it’s to assess plausibility. Converging attestations, early communal belief, and martyrdom together indicate that something remarkable happened, even if the supernatural specifics remain debated.

>>939433240
Ah, friend, I hear your words, but out here on the ice, we don’t chase seals just ‘cause someone said they saw one. We wait. We watch. Stories must match the tracks.

You say many told of seeing Jesus after death—but their tales drift like snow: no same place, no same people, no same time. That’s not strong footing. It's like four hunters returning with stories of a whale, each pointing a different direction. Doesn’t mean they saw one. Maybe they believed. Maybe they hoped. But belief isn’t a harpoon.

And five hundred? No names, no proof. Just words. Our elders teach: if a man claims he saw the spirit lights dance on the sea, we listen—but we don’t build a boat on it.

As for dying for belief—people die for many things: family, pride, false promises. Death shows conviction, not truth.

>>939433248
sounds like you have an agenda if you can't put Jesus's documented words in historical reality

>>939433265
oof
your copy-pasting was filtered by the character limit again
sucks to be you

>>939433265
>So the point isn’t to reconstruct every detail or miracle—it’s to assess plausibility
how could you possibly asses plausibilty without understanding every detail?
for all you know it was all made up and never happened, or maybe Jesus was just performing tricks and illusions that modern magicians do and it was passed off as divine intervention
without working out the exact details of what actually happened you can't even begin to discuss plausibility

>>939433324
none of the gospels are Jesus' documented words
he wasn't walking around with scribes, and he was speaking Aramaic, whereas the gospels were all written in Greek
the gospels contain at best recollections of traditions that were passed down orally by early Jesus followers for decades before they were written down
go independently ask two people who had a conversation 30 years ago (even one they regard as very important) what exactly each of them said and recall the other as having said and see how similar they are

>>939433324
>Jesus's documented words
no such thing, he never wrote anything himself, pretty much everything written about Jesus is 2nd and 3rd hand, by people he never met, many years after his supposed death
you can't document someone's words 30 years after they died, if they have no writings, and you never met them? it's all speculation and hearsay

Historical Jesus Scholars accept John 6:47 as authentic despite putting it under scrutiny


Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν Ἀληθῶς ἀληθῶς: Replaces the Semitic “Amēn” with the more classical Greek “alēthōs” (truly), doubling for emphasis, which aligns with formal Greek rhetoric.
λέγω ὑμῖν ὑμῖν διαβεβαιούμενος λέγω: Adds “diabebaioumenos” (affirming/confidently declaring) to emphasize authority, a more formal construction.
ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ τῇ εἰς ἐμὲ πίστει χρώμενος: Replaces the simple participle “pisteuōn” (believing) with a more elaborate phrase, “tē eis eme pistei chrōmenos” (the one making use of faith in me), using the dative of means and the verb “chrōmenos” for a more nuanced expression, typical of classical Greek.
ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν ἀΐδιον κεκτήσεται: Replaces “echei” (has) with “kektēsetai” (will possess), a future perfect form for a more formal tone, and swaps “aiōnion” (eternal) with “aïdion,” a synonym favored in classical texts for “everlasting.”


>>939433424
there's your ai response

>>939433032
>OK plenty of stuff in the gospels is made up bullshit
>But it is still the word of God and all true
>Only the parts that are inconvenient for my narrative are the embellishments

Wow, more nameless "scholars" with no citation that just happen to fully support your arguments. Amazing! You are so shameless with your dishonest mental gymnastics it is ridiculous.
>The scholars say
>The scholars say
>The scholars say
>Source: my gaping asshole

Scholars agree you are a total piece of shit. No I don't have to provide citations, because you don't.

Shut the fuck up already you liar piece of shit.

>>939434097
>Historical Jesus Scholars accept John 6:47 as authentic
good for them?

>>939434097
this is just a plea to authority
>these people said it's valid, therefore you have to accept that it is

>>939434578
And he talks shit on people for blindly believing science when scientists provide all their evidence, citations, and methods.

The hypocrisy is beyond ridiculous.

>>939434646
You're not a scientist.

>>939434777
there's no barrier to entry to be a scientist, the methods are known and open to anyone

>>939434777
I actually am. PhD in Microbiology. I know you don't believe me. I don't care.

>>939434097
>Historical Jesus Scholars accept John 6:47 as authentic despite putting it under scrutiny
yes, i'm sure you can find many people who call themselves "Historical Jesus Scholars" who will say whatever you like

btw, John 6:47 is αμην αμην λεγω υμιν ο πιστευων εις εμε εχει ζωην αιωνιον

ἀληθῶς (alēthōs) doesn't appear in the passage, which you don't know, since you can't read Greek

you sure can copy and paste, though!

>>939434851
I have no reason to doubt you. The comment I directed at the other anon was to illustrate a very distinct drop off between
>Scientists provide evidence
as compared to
>people who parrot what they hear

>>939435691
I don't get it

>>939436012
you're not alone, it probably only makes any sense to whoever made it

>>939410884 (OP)
Ironically the only actual evidence of something transcendental to our existence is your first point, but specifically in the context of the low entropy state of the early Universe.
This is doubly ironic because it also provides easy refutation of most (if not all of the other points).
The proof of God, proves your other arguments are bullshit. Funny how the world works.

Number 7 on your list is rather unique though, in that it explains perfectly why "God" exists, is because people created it. So even if point 1 does prove something exists. Point 7 all but guarantees that we'll never be objective enough to find it.

>>939433032
>multiple early sources—Paul’s letters, Mark, Luke, and John—report post-mortem appearances in different ways.

Mark doesn't have any resurrection appearances. Luke and John are late.

>Here, we see widespread, early, and costly conviction: followers were willing to face persecution, imprisonment, and death for the truth of what they claimed to witness.

No; you're assuming tradition, but you don't know how any of the 500 died, you don't know how Paul died or how Peter died; instead you're relying on later claims of martyrdom. Josephus tells us James was killed, but he says James was killed for breaking the law, not for believing his brother was alive. I'll be charitable and give you Stephen; but even Stephen only has a vision of Jesus in heaven, not a resurrected Jesus.

My point being is that you cannot say anyone who might have witnessed a physical resurrection was martyred for that claim; that's a later assumption.

>>939436641
>you don't know how any of the 500 died
we have no reason to believe that the 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus even existed
the fact that Paul said it doesn't make it true
he was writing to a largely non-jewish audience in Asia Minor 20 years after the fact, it's not like his readers were going to walk to Judea and do extensive interviews to discern the truth

>>939436641
The cumulative arguments are the proof.

>>939438270
an accumulation of bullshit is just more bullshit, not a proof
even Aquinas admitted that reason could only reveal a generic prime mover and that all of the details of Christian faith require revelation through the scriptures
but what we know that Aquinas didn't is that the scriptures were written by men, that they evolved over time and that, in the case of the gospels, contain very little reliable information about what Jesus said and did
that's not even getting to the other issues, like the fact that several of the NT letters that claim to have been written by Paul weren't actually written by Paul, that James and the Johannine and Petrine epistles weren't written by apostles, that Christian scribes felt free to add shit to the scriptures they copied (e.g. the Johannine Comma), that Paul's version of Christianity seems to be very different from what Jesus taught, that Jesus (and Paul) thought that the world was about to end, and they were wrong, and on and on and on

>>939412389
Religion is the teaching and traditions of man that make void the word of God. (Isiah)

The stories of Adam and Eve are plural.
There were water and land peoples long before the first Adam and Eve story which was a generalized telling of the origins of mankind.
Then after the day of rest was The hebrew origin Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden story sometimes called the eighth "day" creation. The parents of Able, Cain, Seth and several daughters. Genesis 4;6 talks of Cain being banished to the "land of the people of Nod."

There is far more to the story if you read your bible.

Noah's flood was a localized event meant to kill off Gheber or Giants Genesis 6;4 only animals from that region required collecting or saving.

You may benefit by reading the 3 letter forward to the 1611 KJV as the authors admit Known World and planet were not always clearly specified much like day and eon or era. Numbers are not meant to always be gram specific or accurate.

>>939438688
a lot of the stories in Genesis are a response to much older Mesopotamian literature like the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh
the story of Noah is ripped from the earlier story of Utnapishtim, for example