Limit and Mind | Know the Times

> Show me the evidence > Sure, that's a reasonable request. Here are the eyewitness testimonies to Jesus's life, death, and Resurection > That's not evidence > Ok, how about the myriad of archeological findings that support the historical Biblical account? > That's not evidence > Alright, let's use science. The Big Bang and Fine tuning show that a Creator is more likely than not > That's not evidence > Ok, perhaps a philosophical argument will do the trick. Contingency, MOA, Moral argument, and the Kalam. > That's not evidence > Ok, it's hard to see what you'll accept as evidence at this point. I'm starting to think you don't actually want the evidence.

@JackieFrancesca False. Of course he met Jesus and the 500 were put forward as proof at a time when they were alive and could be consulted.

@limitandmind Zero eyewitness testimony. Just one man who never met Jesus who claimed 500 observers.

> Show me the evidence > Sure, that's a reasonable request. Here are the eyewitness testimonies to Jesus's life, death, and Resurection > That's not evidence > Ok, how about the myriad of archeological findings that support the historical Biblical account? > That's not evidence > Alright, let's use science. The Big Bang and Fine tuning show that a Creator is more likely than not > That's not evidence > Ok, perhaps a philosophical argument will do the trick. Contingency, MOA, Moral argument, and the Kalam. > That's not evidence > Ok, it's hard to see what you'll accept as evidence at this point. I'm starting to think you don't actually want the evidence.

@Christ_like_ish That's an opinion not rooted in the scriptures, brother "As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures" Acts 17:2

@limitandmind you can't prove faith there is no evidence to make faith work the effort to try however warps Christians into saying and doing incredibly silly and counter productive things like apologetics or arguing with atheist, which doesn't further Christ and hurts our witness

@JackieFrancesca Incorrect

@limitandmind Zero eyewitness testimony. Paul claims without corroborating evidence 500 people as Jesus.

@TrumperTantru11 @darwintojesus Let's design an experiment together Dan. First, what methodology do you propose for data collection?

@darwintojesus Evidence requires empirical, falsifiable data. Testimonies are hearsay; archaeology confirms places, not miracles; "fine-tuning" is a God-of-the-gaps fallacy; and logic puzzles aren't physical proof. You’re confusing "arguments" with "demonstrable facts."

Like I always say...

Sagan's "pale blue dot" was meant to humble us, but on his own premises it reduces every love, every grief, every act of courage that has ever happened on earth to chemistry that happens to occur on a mote of dust. If your life has no overarching purpose, which it doesn't if there is no God, then what is tenderness other than a possibly misguided evolutionary adaptation to the unfeeling and indifferent entropic world of Dawkins? We reach for something greater than the puddle because in it we see the reflection of the Creator in whose image we are made.

@scottishnomad25 You can choose the road, but you can't choose the destination

@limitandmind Your God loves blood sacrifices. I’m not worshiping that, it’s that’s simple.

@Christ_like_ish So what's our takeaway, Phil? It's not clear why you are so adamant on this, or how it should change how we go about things

@limitandmind people who want to be swayed sure people looking for something perhaps but that's less about the evidence and more the state of the person, because it's not evidence in the way that people are asking it plausible rational

Christian, it is your fault that you are insulted. If you weren't such a dummy, they wouldn't have to insult you. Indistinguishable from the words of an abuser

@Christ_like_ish Many people have been swayed by the evidence, not sure what you're talking about

@limitandmind it's a dumb exercise on all sides someone asking for evidence won't be swayed by evidence that is only plausible and using this evidence as a reasonable rational for faith isn't illogical so it's two people talking about two totally different things

@GusMG777 Realism: We assume that there is a real phenomenon "out there" to study Intelligibility: We assume the universe is not chaotic or fundamentally inscrutable

@limitandmind Realism and inteligibility are unproven assumptions of science? Please elaborate

@Christ_like_ish Ok...what's your point?

@limitandmind it's a motivated reasoning though you're reading meaning into the science section for instance. The intricacy and fine tuning doesn't mean it's more likely, it just is a thing. It doesn't dismiss the presence of a creator either Which is kinda like all of these

@GusMG777 Not sure what you're asking

@limitandmind What do you mean?

@GusMG777 Realism, intelligibility, the uniformity of nature, and causality...though there may be more

@limitandmind Whats the unprovable assumption of science?

@Christ_like_ish Not really, these together make a cumulative (non-exhaustive) case for why you should take the next step of trusting Jesus.

@limitandmind this is far less evidence and more rational he impact of that rational is only as much as someone is motivated to justify or believe a particular thing

Great question, it gets to to the heart of biblical faith. Blind faith is not a biblical category. Faith is encouraged as trust based on sufficient evidence and open reasoning ("the wisdom from above is open to reason"). The Bible values childlike trust and adult-level reasoning. It also condemns stubborn refusal to accept evidence (for example the Pharisees demanding signs while ignoring the ones already given in Matthew 12:38-39, 16:1-4). Additionally, Christianity is a relationship with God, so that relationship and the change in your life is what shows the genuineness, at least of your own faith which won't be put to shame. What helps me here is to realize there are many things that people believe without 100% proof. Mathematics and Science rest on unprovable assumptions. So if we drop that unreasonable requirement, we set ourselves up to actually investigate whether the claims of the bible are true or not. It's a relief to know God doesn't require blind faith, there are reasons to believe. Then the next step is trust, the leap of faith. What's preventing you from taking that step?

@limitandmind I would like some help with a slightly related idea and i promise i wanna be polite: How do you get from the historicity of jesus to verifying christianity? If the bible is a historical document why does it have important contradictions? And how are those accounted for?

Yes, it's a well meaning position but throws the baby out with the bathwater. My theory is that if you're naturally averse to conflict, then you're more likely to align with approaches to evangelism like "share the gospel, use words if necessary" or "apologetics doesn't work because you can't argue people into the kingdom"

I don't understand this concept that some have that Christian Apologetics is not needed, when Paul did so consistently as part of his Evangelism. We have even more of a challenge in a secular society that doesn't believe in the supernatural or spiritual. I think part of the problem is that, with apologetics, you need to be willing to plant seeds and let others potentially harvest them. Over the years, I've had more than a few people I had planted the seeds of truth in come back to tell me they were now following Jesus, and that the arguments I'd made had gotten them thinking. To God be the glory!

You don't have to understand all of theology to defend your faith. You don't even need a degree in apologetics to explain why you believe God exists. You just need to stop accepting that the burden of proof is only on you. And you need to remember that love is the highest goal. Math rests on axioms. Science rests on the uniformity of nature. Both are unproven, but fundamental commitments. "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us" Have a reason, don't believe the goofs who say apologetics is worthless. You're allowed to say: "I believe in God for the same reason you believe in logic. It makes everything else make sense."

@MarioFunk @MerkMilly You're flailing around with a stick and calling that baseball

@MerkMilly @limitandmind Because its necessary. I'm calling "unicorn" what you choose to call "god". If you start defining what this being's features are, the word "god" can actually mean something

@goliathgroyper @MarioFunk You're making the claim that there could be something necessary that creates the world but isn't God. Asking for an example is the reasonable next step. That you can't answer that question doesn't help your case.

Yes, i can actually. That’s called accepting what you don’t know. I could say literally anything i want, and it would be no different than you saying it’s an intelligent omnipotent and personable God. That’s called the God of the gaps fallacy which i imagine you’ve heard of, and i don’t have to commit it to be rational on the contingency argument. Your go to evidence for God is just you begging the question. It’s not evidence.

@CoachThisath ghuntley.com/loop/

There's never been a better time to learn how to write for and while loops Everything that can be arbitraged will be arbitraged