His argumebts are solid but how do you connecf this creator force with the God of Abraham?

His argumebts are solid but how do you connecf this creator force with the God of Abraham? I'm a theist but I just don't see how the abrahamic God is the creator.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If we accept the existence of an all-powerful, transcendent immutable being, who is man's highest good, then what possible objection could we provide to the idea that Jesus Christ died and rose again after three days in a tomb, proving the power of his testimony derived from that same God?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >then what possible objection could we provide to the idea that Jesus Christ died and rose again after three days in a tomb
      It’s not that the idea is conceptually a problem, it’s just there’s not enough evidence for it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But I argue just the opposite. You have to judge the whole of evidence not just at the face by the facts but also at the emotional level, using your intuition. It may be the case that you are cut off from your emotions or intuition, it happens to many, but in that case I would just ask God for help directly with sincerity and a humble heart. He will show you. God bless you.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >i-if you don't agree with me y-you just pray more ok??
          holy shit lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what I said, though maybe I didn't make myself clear. Here's an illustration: some people are good judges of the characters of total strangers, while some people are always getting themselves into trouble with bad people. The latter suggests an emotional problem or a deficit in intuition. And for those who want to discover the truth of this matter they are going to need a properly working intuition. But like I said, asking God for help is probably the better action.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >properly working intuition = intuition that works the same way as mine
            amazin

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When you honestly look at the landscape, Jesus is the only real game in town. It's either Jesus or Nothing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if you disagree with me you're just not looking right, okay??
            holy shit l m a o

            this really is the best you've got

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >belief in god is tied to outcomes in life
            Why does EVERY SINGLE LARPing American Christian on here devolve straight to prosperity gospel?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your reply is a very bad misread of my post.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >some people are always getting themselves into trouble with bad people. The latter suggests an emotional problem or a deficit in intuition
            What is this but stating that belief in god is tied to outcomes in life? You're actually trying to argue prosperity gospel fricking LOL
            >bad people believe bad so they end up in bad situations
            >I find nothing wrong with this statement
            >b-but it's not prosperity gospel!!! it's not!

            It is. It's literally prosperity gospel. Jesus preached to the prostitutes and got betrayed to his own crucifixion by one of his own, did he have bad intuition? fricking LOL

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I see. Let me restate that:
            Some people are always getting themselves into trouble with bad people because they are either too trusting, have bad boundaries, or have suffered in life to the extent that they've had to disassociate parts of themselves in order to manage life, which becomes a major factor behind these troubled interactions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you strip it from the belief in god that's a meaningless statement. If you tie it to belief in god, it's prosperity gospel. You lost. You literally tried to tie belief in god to life outcomes and you lost. I'm laughing at you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not trying to win anything. If you think that's what I'm trying to say, then I don't mind if you do, but really, it's a misread.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >literal empty noise
            I accept your concession. It's hilarious how Christians lose all logical coherence once they don't have atheists or pagans to attack. Deists? NOOO IT HAS TO BE BY THE BIBLE O-OR ELSE, THE UNKNOWABLE COSMIC FORCE HAS TO HAVE SHAT OUT A BABY IN A israeli WOMAN'S WOMB BECAUSE UH... BECAUSE UH... USE YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT, OKAY! IF YOU DON'T YOU'LL SUFFER IN LIFE!

            Actual 13 year olds conjugate Christianity better.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I can’t agree. I think that can just mislead you. You can justify any belief that way.

          You clearly haven't read the scholarship on it enough, the objections to the resurrection are philosophical and not historical primarily

          I have read some academic literature concerning the Bible. I don’t think the resurrection has been “debunked”, I just think there’s not really that much evidence to certify strong belief in it. If there were other strong ways of justifying Christianity, it wouldn’t be so much of a problem

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Go read people like Licona, Wright, and Habermas if you want the historical case. Point is, almost all critical scholars who reject the resurrection do so because of Hume-like philosophical argumentation where they reject the possibility of miracles. So if one accepted the existence of God, an entity capable of performing miracles, then there's no solid way of rejecting the resurrection. This is why even various non-Christian scholars who believe in miracles accept the resurrection

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All that does is avoid negative refutations of [event]. It doesn't provide positive evidence for [event]. All the Gospels are dated to decades after the event.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is why even various non-Christian scholars who believe in miracles accept the resurrection
            What does that mean? Why is a scholar believing or disbelieving miracles a priori instead of evaluating the evidence? I think Simone Weil was right when she said the problem with miracles is that they prove too much. Practically every religious tradition has a surplus of miracles and miraculous relics

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Licona, Wright, and Habermas if you want the historical case
            The Christian apologizer's case?
            You're such a fricking clown, holy shit

            Hindu and Muslims believe in magic. They don't believe a man came back from the dead 2000 years ago, based on historical evidence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sick genetic fallacy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Habermas is a Christian, which is to say, he already believes that it's true that Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago.
            How can Habermas possibly have an a serious historical take on Jesus rising from the dead or not?
            He literally think Jesus is alive today, and in a loving relationship with him, if that isn't bias, I don't know what is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Doubling down on your genetic fallacy? You need to escape your fundie mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you explain why it's fallacious to accuse Habermas of being biased? He believes he's in a loving relationship with the guy he is trying to prove didn't die 2000 years ago
            Of course he isn't going to conclude that Jesus died permanently

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself.

            The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Now explain why it's irrelevant
            Believing Jesus is alive and in a loving relationship with you, it doesn't seem irrelevant, it seems like something that will bias you heavily towards thinking he didn't die 2000 years ago

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >various non-Christian scholars who believe in miracles accept the resurrection
            list them :^)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pinchas Lapide was a fairly famous one

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >various

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh frick. I read people like Bart Ehrman and Robert Price instead.
            Now I'm pretty much going to hell ;(

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Robert Price
            The anon you're talking about has said some silly things, but Price is a bit of an idiot. I consider Christ mythicists only slightly less dumb than Alexander the Great Mythicists

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Still a more probable explanation that actual magic, tbh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I only know who Habermas is among the apologizers. And I consider him to be a clown idiot, good match of quality.
            Habermas thinks he makes a case for Christ, by tallying up historians who agrees with him on the data, while disagreeing with their conclusions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus historicists, on the other hand

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            there's a proud mythicist trapped inside ehrman begging to be released

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Every secular historicist with a Christian background is probably like that. Historicism is a vestige of indoctrination, they still feel the unconscious need to blindly obey authority and follow consensus even after discarding Christianity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Muslim-tier delusion, mythicists dream Ehrman would recant his destruction of their lunacy.

            Ehrman undermined his own position in such a disastrous way there I'm surprised there are people who think he's some champion of historicism. And against Price of all people, who's a notoriously bad debater.

            it's obvious why he refuses to debate richard carrier he knows the whooping that awaits him

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A shame because I'd definitely watch that one.
            >Carrier: Superman never existed.
            >Ehrman: I don't think Superman existed either but I'm talking about the historical Clark Kent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Muslim-tier delusion, mythicists dream Ehrman would recant his destruction of their lunacy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ehrman undermined his own position in such a disastrous way there I'm surprised there are people who think he's some champion of historicism. And against Price of all people, who's a notoriously bad debater.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Point is, almost all critical scholars who reject the resurrection do so because of Hume-like philosophical argumentation where they reject the possibility of miracles
            Or they don't think that particular miracle occurred? Or that god is capable of performing miracles?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >bro you can't just believe in my god if you don't have an emotional bias first!
          Yeah we know lol.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, I tried praying and still don't intuit that your "argument" succeeds. What now?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, clearly, according to anon, you're going to live a bad life because you're a bad person. This isn't prosperity gospel, mind. It just... is, yeah. Totally. It's only a coincidence you don't believe.

            Clearly, the world gives its bounties only to the believers. Yeah.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Read picrel for some context.

            I know it sounds crazy, but I absolutely believe it because I know the depths first-hand of human denial: knowing Jesus Christ is God is as obvious as knowing where the Sun is in the sky. That's the truth. And if you don't think so, then I don't know what more to tell you but to pray to God. He has all the power. He can and will help you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, tried harder, still doesn't work. What now?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >knowing Jesus Christ is God is as obvious as knowing where the Sun is in the sky.
            Cool
            This just outright falsifies Christianity for me
            I have immediate access to my own thoughts and experiences, I KNOW, I don't know Jesus is as obvious as the sun. Glad you could help me sort it out

            I'm only repeating God's own words and promise:
            >Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.
            So don't lose heart. Don't give into the nihilism which is patently false. God will open your eyes if you really desire to have them opened. And once opened, you will wonder, and be free and happy. You will be like a kid again but with the mind of an adult. It's sbsolutely wonderful and I'll pray that God bless all of you immensely.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >knowing Jesus Christ is God is as obvious as knowing where the Sun is in the sky.
            Cool
            This just outright falsifies Christianity for me
            I have immediate access to my own thoughts and experiences, I KNOW, I don't know Jesus is as obvious as the sun. Glad you could help me sort it out

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >knowing Jesus Christ is God is as obvious as knowing where the Sun is in the sky
            Except you need to be indoctrinated with this 2000 years old book to even believe anything about a "Jesus Christ" while the Sun is out there in the sky every single day for all to see.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >judge the whole of evidence not just at the face by the facts but also at the emotional level
          So true! That's why, in the court of law, we should convict the accused if we just feel like they're guilty, not when there's evidence of their guilt.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You clearly haven't read the scholarship on it enough, the objections to the resurrection are philosophical and not historical primarily

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the resurrection are philosophical and not historical primarily
          It's for a good reason historians presuppose naturalism when doing history.
          When you accept supernatural explanations, you destroy your ability to perform abductive reasoning.

          Suppose we have an historical fact to explain "some people 2000 years ago wrote that a man rose from the dead"
          Now what best explains this fact?
          People make up stories -> naturalistic explanation
          or
          A wizard with the powers to raise other people from the dead did it -> supernatural explanation
          A wizard with the powers to make text appear caused the historical data we're trying to account for to exist -> supernatural explanation
          A wizard with the powers to raise himself from the dead -> supernatural explanation
          A poltergeist with the specific desire to cause the data we are trying to explain did it -> supernatural explanation (this one is really good, it predicts the data)
          A god did it -> supernatural explanation

          There are no priors to the probabilities of any of these explanations. How do you possibly figure out which is most likely?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Read thread context b4 posting

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Will that resolve the problem I raised?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't understand how "thread context" resolves my problem.
            Can you please explain what you think my problems is, and how "thread context" solves it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            OP accepted the existence of God and wanted a bridge to abrahamic religion, so he has the sufficient priors for accepting what you wrote
            >A god did it -> supernatural explanation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's only engaging with half my post, right?
            A God having the specific powers and desire to cause the data we're trying to explain (text telling a story about man rising from the dead 2000 years ago)
            it fully explains the data
            but does not entail that Jesus is God, or that he rose from the dead

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The best explanation is inferred by investigating the evidence surrounding the resurrection, obviously merely affirming God exists isn't enough to accept the resurrection claim. Read more carefully.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And what would that tell you? Nothing.
            A God can do anything, you can't infer anything

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There is no purpose for it either. The reasoning Christians give for the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice is that it is what allows the sins of humans to be forgiven and allows them to enter heaven but in the OT God has forgiven many sins and taken people to heaven before Jesus was ever born.

        The OT claims that when we sin we deserve death so God allows those repented of heart to offer the soul of a clean animal in place of theirs as a sacrifice for him to forgive the sins and they no longer deserve death. But he has made it clears many times that he does not really need that either, that he is capable of forgiving by repentance alone without the sacrifice and that the unrepentant can sacrifice a thousand bulls
        if he wants and still not gain his forgiveness. There is really no reason why God had to sacrifice his son to forgive anyone.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it’s just there’s not enough evidence for it
        Not true for NDEs though as NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

        So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

        >"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."

        If NDEs were hallucinations somehow then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would maintain that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I had an NDE, but don't think it was magic. What gives?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Realer than Real
          Imagine the kind of braindead American that pays for this shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what possible objection could you have to the most debated and controversial thing Christianity's produced

      Everything from the ebionites to the gnostics to muslims have relentlessly provided objections to that over thousands of years of history in abrahamism alone anon, this isn't the atheist gotcha you wish it is.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The God of the Christian Bible satisfies each of these requirements. He was there in the beginning before creation, and without Him nothing in creation that was made would have been made (Psalm 90:2; John 1:1–3; Romans 11:36). He has not changed from the beginning of time (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). His intelligence far exceeds our own (Isaiah 55:8–9), and He is more powerful than we could imagine (Job 38—39). Some scholars disregard this argument because the first cause could have been a different god or a group of deities. In this regard, the argument is not quite enough to prove the existence of the God of the Bible, but it certainly is part of the proof.

    It is easy to see that God is the uncaused causer, or the "First Cause." The very first verse in the Bible reveals this to be true: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Even Jesus introduces Himself as the first cause in Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." God was there at the beginning; He created matter and energy and the universe, putting into motion all of the seasons, the revolutions of the earth, and the flowing of rivers, and giving life to all that exists. He is not only the first cause of creation, but He is also the first cause of our salvation. He took the first step in forming us, and He took the first step in having a relationship with us: "We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No shit a monotheistic god matches deistic characteristics. Now prove everything else, prove there was a global flood and Jesus got resurrected and yadda yadda without circular logic citing your own holy book.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >He created matter and energy and the universe, putting into motion all of the seasons, the revolutions of the earth, and the flowing of rivers, and giving life to all that exists
      i like how in the christschizo baby brain 'the origin of all matter and energy' is in the same category as 'sky man make winter come and river flow'

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God is the first cause of everything until it comes to the sinful things you do that he disapproves of. Then causality suddenly stops being a thing.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is this guy in here literally trying to claim that scholars accept that the resurrection was real, but they disagree with it on "philosophical" grounds, and not on the fact that it's a mythology and never happened?
    I do not understand how a person can be so insulated that they would think this

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >His argumebts are solid
    Not really

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      8

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        7

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          6

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's literally what the summa theologica is about, maybe you should try reading it?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      have a nice day.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If there ever was a reddit philosopher, it was TAq. He's the one who we can trace all heggin love science folks back to. And he was wrong about all of it as well.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/EINaH1E.png

      If there ever was a reddit philosopher, it was TAq. He's the one who we can trace all heggin love science folks back to. And he was wrong about all of it as well.

      /thread

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You don't, if anything his arguments support Deism not christianity or any religion in particular

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >His argumebts
    is this the new "bomes"?
    >are solid
    like liquid shit. fricking trolls. you know very well that there are serious issues with his "arguments" but place a throwaway hint in your OP just to get You's? do you have anything better to live for, or are you ready for the rope? stop hesitating.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, no.
      Russel has his own opinion, which i respect, but not agree.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not an opinion, it's literally what he does in Summa Theologiae. Aquinas was a total hack, his entire career revolved around coopting Aristotle to try (and fail) to elevate apologetics from the defense of superstitious beliefs to something that could be justified logically. Arguments like the quinque viae are outdated and have been debunked a long time ago, Thomists just sound like morons to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of philosophy these days.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No.
          Thomisim is still very advanced and logically consistent even compared to today's philosophies.
          Like i said, Russell has an opinion, nothing else.
          I might respect it, but dont agree with it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nice opinion, moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, yeah.
            But it's closer to reality than his.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How so?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because thomistic philosophy is extremely advanced and logically consistent even compared to today's philosophies.
            Like i said.
            Taking for aristotle is not a bad thing, is actually good.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You must have skipped the last 700 years of philosophy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tell me, how modern philosophy in any way, proves Thomisim "outdated" as you say.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The video I posted in

            It's not an opinion, it's literally what he does in Summa Theologiae. Aquinas was a total hack, his entire career revolved around coopting Aristotle to try (and fail) to elevate apologetics from the defense of superstitious beliefs to something that could be justified logically. Arguments like the quinque viae are outdated and have been debunked a long time ago, Thomists just sound like morons to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of philosophy these days.

            sums it up pretty well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >advanced
            Huh?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By order of elimination;
    there can only be one God. For, if there's many Gods, how come the laws of physics remain constat? There's no "greek physics", "hindu physics", "chinese physics", "congolese physics" or "yoruba physics", so there must be a single, logical and coherent God.

    Otherwise one would walk into say japan, and find that Amaterasu has chosen that gravity is to be measured by multiplying mass by two instead of by square, or that in india brahma chose that electromagnetism should function as a force instead of a wave, so suddenly all light pushes things.

    But these things don't happen, so there must only be one God keeping everything in place.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And it makes sense that someone so wise and powerful took interest in a meek, humble and loyal man called Abram who loved him more than he loved his beloved son.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Brahman is one god though, why your God in particular?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >His arguments are solid
    They're not. His shitty arguments lead to a generic deity, not the God of the Bible. He's almost singlehandedly responsible for giving the empiricists a golden opportunity to dunk on him and, in the eyes of the common brainlet, all of Christianity as a whole. He started the philosophical decline of Christianity in the world because he was made the poster boy of apologetics while having weak arguments that are easily put into question by even the most brainlet of atheists, all you have to do is ask why the arguments lead to the Christian God and you dismantle the whole thing. Transcendental arguments and analysis of paradigm-level presuppositions were always the superior method but this Black person got all the limelight for some reason, and we're still paying the price for that to this day.
    Pic not related

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >He's almost singlehandedly responsible for giving the empiricists a golden opportunity to dunk on him and, in the eyes of the common brainlet, all of Christianity as a whole
      true should've done like the orthodox and keep the natural theology out (although their arguments are even shittier)

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If Thomism is so great, what's some of it accomplishments? Like, what does it do

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      its greatest achievement is giving zoomer """tradcath""" youtubers a false sense of confidence in their apologetics while spewing utter recycled aristotelian bullshit disguised as theology and letting atheism rightly dunk on it ever since its inception

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Does Ehrman not know Clark Kent is Superman?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He knows, but he thinks it's reasonable to assume Superman minus his super powers existed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So just "man" the regular person?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Some guy existed
    ...Cool

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So just "man" the regular person?

      Yeah, that's basically what their historicism that so many historians agree with amounts to.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The funny part is they end up with a Jesus so generic that he could be any random hobo crucified by the Romans which ruins the whole point of proposing a historical Jesus to explain the birth of the religion

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Someone has to be the real world counterpart to the Superman of the comics, anon. People wouldn't just invent a fictional character and portray him in the real world if he didn't exist at all. That'd be unethical.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Their debate reminded me of pic related

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "The mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Dobby who lived in 20th-century-CE Britain, and that he was probably both freed by a historical Harry Potter and killed by a historical Bellatrix Lestrange.[3][4][q 3][5][6] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of other major aspects of J. K. Rowling's stories, nor the extent to which they and Warner Bros. Pictures may have replaced the historical Dobby with a supernatural house-elf of magic."

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you unironically believe in the magic stuff happening in the Bible you're just plain moronic. It's a only an old philosophical work wrote by humans. God might exist , who knows, but we have no idea what he is

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are some bottom-of-the-barrel Christian arguments being put forth ITT. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes Christians have good, even great, arguments, but all the teenage new converts of IQfy must be converging on this thread to spout nonsense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's every deist thread on IQfy. Christians only really have philosophical backing to get you to 'a' monotheistic god, and barely at that given how many people are flocking away from their congregations for atheism, paganism, or generic 'spirituality'. Deists on the other hand make them revert to the level of a babbling grade schooler. The mere concept of belief in a divine but not belief in the Bible is baffling to them, as if one must naturally lead to the other because... because it just does, okay???

      In the end they expect you to go from deism to christianity because it's popular, not because they have arguments for it. In this they have surrendered themselves to the level of the hated pagan Romans they once martyred themselves for, the superstructure subsuming all critique or dissent.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The OP seemed to want an answer only to the immediate question of his post, so in terms of this was how I replied, at least. If he accepts Aquinas' arguments, which are very strong, then he effectively has little reason not to become a Christian, unless he hasn't actually read a lot of the literature on classical theism and its implications, or he hasn't understood them. The arguments that Aquinas defends rule out any possible ground for polytheism, animism, pantheism, deism and atheism. That pretty much leaves you only with the Abrahamic tradition as far as mainstream religion goes. And from there, he will find countless resources, pretty much anywhere, on the New Testament, its reliability, the witness of the early Church and its formation, prophecies concerning the Messiah, to say nothing of the Gospels themselves. But if the OP has such questions, then no one is stopping him from asking them here. I'm sure one of us can help him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >That pretty much leaves you only with the Abrahamic tradition as far as mainstream religion goes.
        Dude…

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Don’t get me wrong, sometimes Christians have good, even great, arguments
      Any examples? I don't think I've ever encountered a Christian with a good argument, here or elsewhere.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >His argumebts are solid
    They aren't; that's why noone uses them to convert people

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I seen a lot of people, convert to Christianity because of thomistic arguments though.
      So you are wrong.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it was revealed to me in a dream
        If they were good argument every church and christian denomination would use them as their first point in their preaching.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *