Gman wrote:
Yes.. Well a careful examination of all faiths should be in order.. That meaning studying all the faiths.. Such as Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc..
Okay, I don't know where to start.
1. A very minority of people on the planet have access to the holy books of all religions in the world.
2. An even smaller minority of people have the time to actually thoroughly study them.
3. A great deal of people who have both access to the holy books of other religions and time to study them lack the relevant education to adequately compare them.
4. Some who do study them come to drastically different conclusions that you and Rich Deem did. I'll elaborate more below.
Here's how the famous theologian William Lane Craig summarized it, much more eloquently than I can. Just substitute "historical evidence" with "scientific evidence".
"So what is the problem with basing religious beliefs on historical proofs? The problem, it seems to me, is the relativity of the historical evidence as well as one’s ability to grasp it. We have both the manuscript evidence and the evaluative historical tools to provide a good foundation for belief in Jesus as the Gospels describe him. But what about earlier generations which lacked the evidence and the tools we enjoy? The fact is that the vast majority of people throughout history and in the world today have had neither the training, the time, nor the resources to conduct a historical investigation of the evidence for Jesus. If we insist on a historical, evidential foundation for faith, then we consign most of the world’s population to unbelief and thus deny them the privilege and joy of knowing God in Christ. To me this is unconscionable. This, then, is the ugly, broad ditch which confronts us: the gap between people’s historically conditioned epistemic situation and the evidence required to warrant Christian belief."
I've read Rich's arguments a long time ago. They are completely unconvincing when you put a little thought into them.
First, Muslims make the same arguments. They claim that the Qur'an is full of "scientific miracles". Hindus do the same.
They all genuinely think their religion makes the most sense. Hindus have actual documented evidence of miracles performed by their gods, like the famous Hindu milk miracle (google it if you aren't familiar with it). And as I'm sure you have objections to their arguments, so do they with respect to Christianity. They have studied, and reasonably chosen not to believe in Jesus, just like you have with their religions.
Second, the Bible is filled with scientific errors. With respect to scientific accuracy, it is no different than other holy books. Deny this all you want, but the only way to explain away the numerous incosistencies (e.g. the earth and sky are held up by pillars, the earth is surrounded by waters populated with threatening sea monsters (Rahab, Leviathan), the sky is as hard “as a molten mirror” (Job 37:18) and holds water above it, the sky has windows in it that God opens up so it can rain on the earth (e.g. Gen. 7:11), etc etc), is to label them as figurative or as products of cultural conditioning. But you can do the same with the holy books of other religions.
Third, even if it is conceded that evidence points at Christianity, most people who walked the planet earth have not had access to it.
This is either due to geographical or historical misfortune (how can someone, for example, born in the 16th century be blamed for not believing in Jesus?)
Fourth, Rich's argument also supports Judaism.
Actually that isn't necessarily true. The Bible is actually a middle-eastern faith which originated in the land of Israel.. I'm of European dissent. Europeans were not Bible believers. Europeans worshiped the Norse gods, the gods of the druids
No, it is absolutely true. It is a statistical fact that you are the most likely going to embrace the religion of your parents. The fact that Christianity
originated in Europe is irrelevant.
I believe I have... Please explain to me how there is a reasonable non-belief..
The fact that there are millions of honest, good, reasonable non-Christians.
Again I would challenge to line them up together and compare them.. I own two Korans and the Hindu scriptures.. The logical choice is the God of the Bible..
Already covered this above. Even if this point is conceded, there are numerous other problems you have to deal with.
