Very Simple Questions for Atheists

[Faithful]

How do you explain the fact the disciples said they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings?

And how do you explain the fact that nature can't come from nothing nor always have existed, since you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so?

[NiceAtheist]

1. you're assuming the bible is fact. remember? you guys believe the bible is fact based on faith, not fact. so whatever happened to jesus might not of been exactly as the bible says.

2. ...what? rephrase that please.

[Faithful]

Nobody is assuming the Bible is fact. Rather, we rely on the historical standard for evidence. And it is a fact Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity, more than any ten figures combined. Therefore, historians don't just throw out the whole Bible nor do they throw out all documents in history, for they are not ignorant like you. They glean what certain facts they can.

One of those facts we can glean from the Scriptures is the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings as it is so well multiply attested in various group settings and explains how the Church began on this very testimony.

Therefore, the question remains. Without being ignorant, answer the question: How do you explain the fact the disciples said they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings?

Hence, you can see Christian faith is unique in the world, much different than Atheism, Hinduism, Islam, Deism and Judaism, because it is evidenced. So you can say Christian faith is evidenced, whereas your faith is not. Consider your faith blind faith in disobedience to God.

I can't rephrase what was asked so perfectly: How do you explain the fact that nature can't come from nothing nor always have existed, since you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so? Answer the question: don't be ignorant.

[_shalom_]

If there were indisputable proof that the disciples saw Jesus raised from the dead then there would be no need for faith to believe... we'd all know it to be true for a fact.

God created us to love him. Love is necessarily a choice... you couldn't love me if I forced you to do it. Hence unbelievers... God pours his love out to them and it's their choice to accept it or not.

So the question back would have to be: How did Judas end up betraying Christ? He knew what he saw, but still he chose to act contrary to that evidence. Then the same applies to unbelievers today. They have the choice to accept or not. How do they choose: because it is their God given choice.

Also, what evidence do you have to support your assertion Faithful that Jesus is well documented. Outside of the bible there is little to no supporting evidence that I know about.

I would state that my best understanding is that unbiased neutral historian observers do concur that a historical Christ did indeed exist. Find me any official documentation from the time proving that Jesus Christ existed.

[Faithful]

Why must faith be blind like in atheism? Why can't faith be proven? God would have us go with proven faith not blind faith. Since there is an indisputable proof Jesus was raised from the dead by the testimony of the eyewitness in various group settings, then there must be a reason why people reject the truth. Man is sinful, full of selfishness and unrighteousness who does not abide in His Creator's will. The very condition of Adam at the fall was independency and disobedience even though he knew God was God. Even Stan knows God is God.

It is illogical to ask for evidence outside of the Bible because nobody was interested in what was happening in some far off region of Rome. But there is a couple of things like how Polycarp said he was a student of John and Clement of Rome said he as a friend of Peter. Primary sources are what matter most and those are the texts of the NT that provide the proof that Jesus raised Himself from the dead. I for one can find no naturalistic explanation to account for it. I think scholars universally have the same problem. And that would be your problem too.

Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. In fact, within 150 years of His death He has more sources than any ten individuals combined (45 in fact). So there should be no issue questioning the historical Jesus.

The question before you is can you find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs? If you can't then give your life to Christ. Jesus said unless you believe who He says He is, you will die in your sins and He will deny you before the Father in heaven. He said He existed before the foundations of the world, and John said nothing that exists exists without Jesus having created it.

[_shalom_]

Faith (in the Christian tradition) is never blind.

Faith is being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

But then faith isn't exactly proven either, if proven would mean scientifically verifiable. We believe in those (scientifically verifiable) things without faith. No, God requires faith for belief. A response by our choice to believe in him. If it isn't a choice, then we have no faith.

[knockknock]

How do you explain the fact the disciples said they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings?

And how do you explain the fact that nature can't come from nothing nor always have existed, since you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so?

Alright, number one!
How do you know that that isn't just a lie? If you've seen the fiction section of your local library, I could bet that several characters there rose from the dead. Of course, don't look in the since fiction section, because some of those ones seem to be decomposing and crave brains.

How is nature explained?
Well, since.
Since advances, and I accept the fact we do not yet know everything about it, but we do know enough to understand that everything that happens in nature is a chemical reaction. What causes the chemical reactions? Structure? Maybe? Yes? Who knows. So, until it's discovered that there is a man in white robes with a beard looking down on a snow globe filled with what we know of space, I will more than likely not be convinced that we cannot learn more.

[Faithful]

How do you know that that isn't just a lie? If you've seen the fiction section of your local library, I could bet that several characters there rose from the dead. Of course, don't look in the since fiction section, because some of those ones seem to be decomposing and crave brains.
You admit the fictional section is fiction. Whereas the testimony of the disciples was never fictional. Church fathers knew the disciples, Paul knew some of them, other individuals in the Bible knew the disciples. Jesus is the most documented in antiquity. If Jesus is fictional then so is Plato and Aristotle and Caesar and Tiberius, etc. But no scholar is that obtuse. If you want to make such claims the burden of evidence is on you to show your extreme stance.


How is nature explained?
Look outside, all that you see and what you don't see in other light spectrums and the quantum world from the big bang to now.


I accept the fact we do not yet know everything about it, but we do know enough to understand that everything that happens in nature is a chemical reaction. What causes the chemical reactions? Structure? Maybe? Yes? Who knows. So, until it's discovered that there is a man in white robes with a beard looking down on a snow globe filled with what we know of space, I will more than likely not be convinced that we cannot learn more.
What causes chemical reactions? Other chemical reactions. Atoms, molecules, etc. God exists outside of time and space. He also created Heaven from which to perch on high in a dimension of His creation.

You don't need to know all things to know God exists otherwise you are making an unreasonable claim, claiming you effectively have to be God to know if God exists to be all knowing. Well, obviously, you are not God so you contradict yourself. You may want to be God but you're not.

It is already discovered God the Father and the Son are in 3rd heaven, because Jesus proved His resurrection and said He went there, so we can know He is there. Praise the Lord!

Now was that so hard?

[Itinerant Lurker]

How do you explain the fact the disciples said they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings?

Well, I don't actually know if the disciples said this - all I have are second hand accounts written decades after the event which claim that the disciples said this.



And how do you explain the fact that nature can't come from nothing nor always have existed, since you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so?

I don't. Physicists have some pretty cool ideas about how this might have happened, but it's all pretty sketchy still.




Lurker

[Faithful]

Well, I don't actually know if the disciples said this - all I have are second hand accounts written decades after the event which claim that the disciples said this.
There is no indication that the writings of the NT were decades later. For example, Luke wrote Acts, a biography of Paul, which he said was part two of his former work of the gospel of Luke. Paul died in the Neronian persecutions, along with most of the first Apostles, around 65 AD so Acts had to be written around 55 AD because it makes no mention of Paul's death. That places the gospel of Luke as late as 45 AD. But since Luke took from Mark that places the gospel of Mark even earlier around 35 AD just two years after the cross. Since this is all very reasonable, it should not be an issue. In fact, when comparing to other historical documents this nearness to the events written about and multiple corroboration holds the highest of standards in antiquity. If you were to reject this information you would have to reject every text written from antiquity because they don't hold a candlestick to the record of the New Testament, but I know of no scholar who is that belligerent.

While there is some second hand accounts of those who knew the Apostles personally that only strengthens the proof. With John in the Temple Peter said, "You killed the author of life, but God raised him to life. And we are witnesses of this fact!" (Acts 3.15). Not just Peter, but Paul wrote "all the Apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7) saw Jesus resurrected. Again, Peter said, "Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead" (Acts 10.40-41). Peter confirmed this in his own writings. Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 2.16). The first churches were set up on their eyewitness testimony. John placed himself at the cross in the gospel of John. And he also wrote in his own writings, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched...we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard" (1 John 1.1,3).

The 4 gospels are not about their writers but emphasizing Jesus in a particular way. We have no reason to doubt:


Matthew wrote Matthew (writes regally like a tax collector, emphasizing Jesus as king);
Mark wrote Mark (very basic writing; Paul was angry with Mark for his flippancy; emphasized Jesus as a servant; Mark placed himself running in the streets naked when Jesus was captured);
Luke wrote Luke (as a doctor was very precise in recounting details and emphasizes Jesus as a man);
John wrote John (emphasizing Jesus as being God and full of love);
Paul wrote his eyewitness testimony in his epistles;
Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter;
John wrote 1,2,3 John and Revelation;
James, the brother of Jesus, wrote James;
Jude, the brother of Jesus, wrote Jude;
Paul had many personal dealings with Peter, James and John to name a few;
the early church fathers, some of whom knew the Apostles additionally testified to this fact (such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp said they had personal dealings with John and Peter);
no other writers are suggested to the contrary or even equipped to write such accounts, and the early church fathers were firm in who these authors were and were in the best position to know so you really have no evidence.

The burden remains on you to show otherwise.That's actually what the law says too with regard to this ancient document.


I don't. Physicists have some pretty cool ideas about how this might have happened, but it's all pretty sketchy still.

Sounds vague. Let me fill you in. Scientists have no idea how something can come from nothing, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. And they know infinite regress is impossible because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on never to reach this point. So, scientifically (and those scientists who have their heads about them) we know the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. When we believe in God we are believing in the uncreated Creator as proven herein.

Now that you know God exists if you care about the evidence, find out where He reveals Himself through nature such as the resurrection proof of Jesus to show only Christianity is true. Praise the Lord! Amen.

[Itinerant Lurker]

There is no indication that the writings of the NT were decades later. For example, Luke wrote Acts, a biography of Paul, which he said was part two of his former work of the gospel of Luke. Paul died in the Neronian persecutions, along with most of the first Apostles, around 65 AD so Acts had to be written around 55 AD because it makes no mention of Paul's death. That places the gospel of Luke as late as 45 AD. But since Luke took from Mark that places the gospel of Mark even earlier around 35 AD just two years after the cross. Since this is all very reasonable, it should not be an issue.


Are you altogether sure this is all very reasonable? It doesn't seem at all clear that Luke the Evangelist was actually the author, with the only evidence I've seen in support of this claim being tradition of the early church fathers. In addition, most biblical scholars seem to think Mark was the first gospel (as the others seem to borrow from it), and was written around AD 70. You've thrown out a series of very charitable assumptions which, if true, would make an interesting case. . .but I don't think these assumptions are reasonable, and it seems as though most biblical scholars agree.






The burden remains on you to show otherwise.That's actually what the law says too with regard to this ancient document.


I simply don't see any convincing evidence to support your claim about the authorship of the gospels being first-hand accounts. Moreover, your position seems to represent a minority among biblical scholars. Nor am I aware of a law that says anything about this ancient document. . .though on that account perhaps you could enlighten me.



Scientists have no idea how something can come from nothing, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.


Sure, according to our human intuition. . .but then our intuition has been shown to be wrong before. In fact on the quantum level things really do seem to be able to just pop into existence out of nothing, though how this can be applied to the origins of the universe is still quite speculative.



. . .scientifically we know the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. When we believe in God we are believing in the uncreated Creator as proven herein.

Now that you know God exists if you care about the evidence, find out where He reveals Himself through nature such as the resurrection proof of Jesus to show only Christianity is true. Praise the Lord! Amen.

You seem to, once again, made some quite charitable, but tragically unwarranted, assumptions here. We don't actually know if the universe requires an outside cause, but lets say we did. Who's to say this outside cause was a god, much less your specific god? Who's to say this outside cause wasn't something entirely temporary or completely trivial?




Lurker

[Faithful]

Are you altogether sure this is all very reasonable? It doesn't seem at all clear that Luke the Evangelist was actually the author, with the only evidence I've seen in support of this claim being tradition of the early church fathers. In addition, most biblical scholars seem to think Mark was the first gospel (as the others seem to borrow from it), and was written around AD 70. You've thrown out a series of very charitable assumptions which, if true, would make an interesting case. . .but I don't think these assumptions are reasonable, and it seems as though most biblical scholars agree.
Luke is one of Paul's travelling companions that Paul talks about in his epistles which coincide with writer of Acts who makes himself one of Paul's companions. The former treaty to Acts (Acts 1.1) was Luke addressed to the same person Theophilus. Nobody was in a position to write these things other than Luke in the full Acts account before Paul was martyred. The gospels were written around 35 AD soon after Jesus died and before the Apostles were martyred, of course. Your assumptions about late dating have no basis. Most biblical scholars would disagree with you.


I simply don't see any convincing evidence to support your claim about the authorship of the gospels being first-hand accounts. Moreover, your position seems to represent a minority among biblical scholars. Nor am I aware of a law that says anything about this ancient document. . .though on that account perhaps you could enlighten me.
I really see no other person qualified to write these gospels than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Traditionally and those closest to the Apostles testified in their own writings these books. They were in the best position to know. I don't know any biblical scholars who hold your view. There are no other candidates in the running. I was referring to the most famous lawyer of the 19th century who said the burden would be on you. And it is. You present no challenge.


Sure, according to our human intuition. . .but then our intuition has been shown to be wrong before. In fact on the quantum level things really do seem to be able to just pop into existence out of nothing, though how this can be applied to the origins of the universe is still quite speculative.

Why assume something pops into existence from nothing when you are not smart enough to figure out the cause? After all the precedence has already been set of trillions and trillions of cause and effects, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems a bit arrogant. Since nothing in nature can come from nothing, therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space being uncreated. No speculating. You're just shutting your mind down which is Satan's aim for you.


You seem to, once again, made some quite charitable, but tragically unwarranted, assumptions here. We don't actually know if the universe requires an outside cause, but lets say we did. Who's to say this outside cause was a god, much less your specific god? Who's to say this outside cause wasn't something entirely temporary or completely trivial?
The proof was just given we know the universe requires a cause outside of itself, because it can't come from nothing nor can it always have existed. Since you didn't challenge this proof why shut your mind down? It is tragic that you shut your mind down because you become a pawn for Satan.

By God we mean a being with a mind, the sole uncreated Creator. Since a mind is needed to create a mind, thus, God has a mind.

You're confused. We have proven that time and space need a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, so it would be illogical to ask if it could be temporal. Creating this universe is trivial? Such vast complexity is derived from being greater that its creation.

[Evangelist G]

Lets clarify things, and make clear distinctions to the term "Nothing". One major aspect of philosophy has to do with making distinctions with words inorder to fully grasp the context in which an individual uses it. We can say emptiness, universally negative, non-existence, and therefore not existent. Inorder to say the univer BEGAN to exist. One must realize that a beginning therefore requires a cause. Even the most famous skeptic David Hume said "i dont have enough faith to not believe in God". Now it should be obvious as to how we reach God as a cause since its intuitive, or common sense as to why the universe must have a cause. because Non- existence cannot be existence. its one of the two. So when scientists refer to nothing creating something they are not referring to nothingness,rather something. Because as i mentioned non-existence CANNOT be existence. Its quite important i emphasize on the meaning of nothingness inorder to make sure people do not bypass the truth for what they want it to mean. Since we know through our eyes that existence exists, there must therefore of had been existence eternally somewhere. Think about it non-believers. Why is there something rather then nothing. And if the universe somehow magically came by chance although its clearly incoherent, why are we living? why does food, which we need to survive grow from the ground? Do you ever see the simple? or always rely on reasoning? even through rational assertions a logical minded person can see the complex design of the universe, how orderly formed it is. It is like a watch,thus requiring a designer. unless you can tell me why the earth floats, has water, it located perfectly in the solar system, has life, has plant-producing oxygen, a continuous water cycle, why we have color, emotions, DNA, unresolved questions that mortal men struggle with and find controversial, i find no reason for holding true what scientists believe. Do not let them rule your mind with Godless ideas.

Sometimes we get caught up in prideful wisdom. From a humble state of mind one can see the obvious truth that scientists, a.k.a mere men with knowledge, not superior wisdom to you or me or him, lack a understanding of God. Either they are not comfortable with him emotionally, or simply rely on experiments/naturalistic explanations to prove everything. sometimes rationality cannot explain everything, and the most rational answer may not always be rational,but through Faith & authority, through promises & our innate feelings which can grasp an infinite being,namely God.

[Faithful]

So when scientists refer to nothing creating something they are not referring to nothingness, rather something.
A person shouldn't say the universe is created from nothing because it is misleading for nothing is non-existence. Instead, say God created from out of Himself.


i find no reason for holding true what scientists believe. Do not let them rule your mind with Godless ideas.
The Bible favors science, just "Avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20).

In keeping with Rom. 1.20, very simply we know God exists because nature can't come from nothing, nor can it always have existed, because if it did, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. And we know who God is, since Jesus is proven to be God by the resurrection proof.

It really is that simple. So this is not a logic or rational problem that needs to be solved, but it is a person's heart that is the problem. God created Hell for those who refuse God the Father's only begotten Son so the Holy Spirit does not enter their spirit and they do not receive eternal life.