The unbelieving Thomas v2.0

[skakos]

Most people think that religion and faith has nothing to do with evidence. But this is not true.

Faith is NOT "believing something with no reason at all", as if people are just plain stupid.
Faith is NOT about waking up one morning and saying "Infinity exists" (hmmm, yes mathematicians do that)

Faith is is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Evidence may well exist. And surely the same applies to many scientific beliefs (but this is another story - see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37085 for that)

People believed in the resurrection of Christ because they SAW it.
The unbelieving Thomas was convinced because of the EVIDENCE presented to him by the very founder of Christianism.
Evidence (i.e. physical evidence) are an integral part of the Christ resurrection.

Consider this though:
What if the resurrection took place TODAY?
What if a modern-day Thomas questioned the truth of resurrection?
Would the modern Thomas be convinced if he saw Christi in front of him?

I would say no...
Modern undelieving Thomas is something like a v2.0 of the old Thomas.
No matter what convicted atheist people see today, no matter what evidence is presented in front of them, they will not believe.
In any case they will just say "Well I don't know, but it must be some kind of a trick, which SOMEDAY science will explain"...
Believing too much in non-believing anything can be a weird thing sometimes...

Your opinion?

[1over137]

No matter what convicted atheist people see today, no matter what evidence is presented in front of them, they will not believe.

Well. I think that there would be people who would believe if the saw what Thomas had seen. Hmmm. Is there a proof in these days comparable to what Thomas had seen?

[Ivellious]

Isn't that kind of an irrelevant question? Is your point that we should believe because had we actually seen the resurrection we would believe? That's a little bit faulty reasoning, no? What if I said to you, who does not believe in the myth of Hercules, that had you seen him you would believe in him, thus you should believe in him? Would you be convinced of the truth of Homer's Iliad if you bore witness to what happened in the story? It's an irrelevant argument to make, because technically speaking you could say it about any disputed past event.

[Stu]

Isn't that kind of an irrelevant question? Is your point that we should believe because had we actually seen the resurrection we would believe? That's a little bit faulty reasoning, no? What if I said to you, who does not believe in the myth of Hercules, that had you seen him you would believe in him, thus you should believe in him? Would you be convinced of the truth of Homer's Iliad if you bore witness to what happened in the story? It's an irrelevant argument to make, because technically speaking you could say it about any disputed past event.

Not quite.

Jesus did exist. People witnessed his death, deeds and resurrection.
Comparing Jesus to Hercules is not logical. It's like comparing Charles Darwin to "Doc" Emmett Brown.

The question is relevant because Jesus was a real person and the events that unfolded are an (influential) part of human history -- so what is proposed here is merely a repetition of past events only in a modern day setting.

[bippy123]

Isn't that kind of an irrelevant question? Is your point that we should believe because had we actually seen the resurrection we would believe? That's a little bit faulty reasoning, no? What if I said to you, who does not believe in the myth of Hercules, that had you seen him you would believe in him, thus you should believe in him? Would you be convinced of the truth of Homer's Iliad if you bore witness to what happened in the story? It's an irrelevant argument to make, because technically speaking you could say it about any disputed past event.

The difference between the bible and homers Iliad is that the bible has a historicity that no ancient book possesses. Plus let's not forget the messianic prophecies of which no religion posesses in the context of it's accuracy. The new testament was written in an autobiographical way. Gary habermas put it best when he said that the new testament were basically roman biographies.

The Iliad and the new testament are worlds apart in this way, in fact when Habermas took his survey from both critical as well as non critical new testament scholars more than 75% of them believe that the empty tomb is a historic fact. This is a very high number to be agreed upon by both atheist as well as theist scholars. So if most of them believe in the empty tomb as a historic fact, by common sense the only explanation that makes sense is the resurrection.

Atheists don't care about the evidence they just don't want God to exist. It's an emotional objection.

[1over137]

My point was that people nowadays do not have the opportunity to meet Jesus as Thomas had.

[skakos]

But nowadays people do not have the opportunity to witness ANY past historic event! Right?
Why do you *believe* that ANY historic event *happened* ???
Because others told you so...

[Stu]

Consider this though:
What if the resurrection took place TODAY?
What if a modern-day Thomas questioned the truth of resurrection?
Would the modern Thomas be convinced if he saw Christi in front of him?

I would say no...
Modern undelieving Thomas is something like a v2.0 of the old Thomas.
No matter what convicted atheist people see today, no matter what evidence is presented in front of them, they will not believe.
In any case they will just say "Well I don't know, but it must be some kind of a trick, which SOMEDAY science will explain"...
Believing too much in non-believing anything can be a weird thing sometimes...

Your opinion?

Interesting. Remember we have to replicate exactly what happened back then.

So, Jesus claimed he was the Son of God -- that get's you a lot of attention straight off the bat. And he performed miracles to back up these claims. Now given modern technology (television) and social media, if a man claiming to be the Son of God started performing miracles on TV and the internet, he would be a world-wide phenomena in 24 hours; and have crowds in their thousands following him. A fake would quickly be found out.
Sure people are sceptical and full of cynicism these days but remember there are a few members here that were once atheists. But yes there are certain folk who are set in their views but I don't think we should label all atheists as such, even though militant atheism is on the rise.

So given that Thomas v2.0 would also have been witness to all the events leading up to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, I'm not sure he would have doubted any more than Thomas v1.0 would have?

[narnia4]

My point was that people nowadays do not have the opportunity to meet Jesus as Thomas had.

Well not physically.

Its not a settled issue within Christian circles, whether miracles occur today and what kinds. There are certainly a great number of people who were convinced by what they believed to be a miracle, vision, or near death experience. Of course, that will probably only convince the people who had the spiritual experience and maybe influence some people close to them... but then you could say the in Thomas' day, those who didn't see Jesus physically could still doubt or disbelieve.

Its kind of an interesting point though. We have advantages like centuries of theology and the Scriptures, but we don't get to live in the short time that Jesus physically walked the earth. Generally, I've thought that people really haven't changed in decades, centuries, or millenia. Doubt and faith and love and hate and all the rest, they're universal human emotions/states.

[thomasbryn]

Atheists don't care about the evidence they just don't want God to exist. It's an emotional objection.

This is not true. What is the evidence that God exists? i will be glad to hear it?

[Silvertusk]

Welcome to the forum Thomasbryn. There is plenty of evidence of the existence of God. You may not agree with its conclusions fair enough but it is still evidence. So it is an emotional response. I certainly agree there is evidence that points away from God but the positive for me far outweighs the negative. So I go where it seems to be pointing. For starters - if you want to know the cutting edge of Christian apologetics I would recommend http://www.reasonablefaith.org where Dr William Lane Craig has done a 32 part podcast on the existence of God looking at the latest in current science and philosophy. It is a great listen and easy to take in. Also of course there is plenty of material on the Home site. Enjoy.

Silvertusk

[bippy123]

I would also like to recommend Professor Gary Habermas. He was an unbeliever who used to say the same thing about Christians that alot of militant atheists say, until he decided to do his PHD dissertation on the resurrection and when he was through be converted to Christianity. He is known as the resurrection man.

He also came up with the minimal facts theory on the resurrection.

www.garyhabermas.com

Habermas is one of the worlds foremost experts on the resurrection and was known for having a debate with his good friend Doctor Antony Flew who was the top Atheist philosopher of the 20th century before he himself came to believe in a God and shocked the atheist world by writing the book "there is a A God".

Flew was attacked by militant atheists worldwide because of his conversion away from atheism. He was called every name in the book from a senile old man to an idiot. Flew converted to deism just on the facts alone and I believe the only reason he didn't convert all the way to Christianity before he passed away could be seen from his last few video interviews. He was scared to death of living forever lol. He was scared of getting bored in heaven.

Flew started to be believe in God because of the latest scientific evidences alone, but he was genuinely like most Christian philosophers even when he an atheist because he was genuinely a nice person.
When asked why he converted away from atheism he simply stated that he followed the evidence where it lead him.

He also credited the debate with William Lane Craig as one of the factors in his conversion.

[Byblos]

Atheists don't care about the evidence they just don't want God to exist. It's an emotional objection.

This is not true. What is the evidence that God exists? i will be glad to hear it?

Welcome Thomas. If you don't mind, please post something about yourself in the introduction thread so we can all officially welcome you to the site. I would also suggest that you peruse some of the articles on the main page that will help you formulate an idea of what kind of arguments we usually put forth in terms of the relations between God and science. As to the evidence of God's existence, I'm sure you're familiar with most of the standard arguments from first causation to design to objective morality, etc, etc. If there is one in particular you would like to discuss please feel free to create a thread.

[MrRoboto]

Atheists don't care about the evidence they just don't want God to exist. It's an emotional objection.

Very true and very well put. Given what little we know about our 4 dimensional existence there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. Someone has to be willing to go where that evidence leads. In the case of some people it is the whole horse, water, drink situation.

[thomasbryn]

Hi Silver tusk,
Thanks for the welcome and i look forward to debate on here although i can't promise to be here very often i will try and pop in and follow perhaps one or two threads . To address your comments I believe we may be talking cross terminology . When i refer to EVIDENCE i refer to something that leads to a PROVABLE / ACTUAL and DETECTABLE Truth. I may be using the worng word I mean perhaps EMPERICAL EVIDENCE i.e a means of CONCLUDING a TRUTH. I accept that there will be many areas in life where this sort of evidence is not available and so guesses( hypoetheses ) will need to be made , however they too must remain UNTRUE until proven through evidence.Followign this thinking one cannot help to conclude that the religions of the world have yet given any real evidnce that GOD EXISTS. Is that an unfair comment? Please share anything you feel contradicts it.

Silvertusk[/quote]