Evidence for God from Science

My atheist friend claims that bishops in Nicaea put away inconsistent things. So, for him, Bible consistency means nothing.

1over137 wrote:My atheist friend claims that bishops in Nicaea put away inconsistent things. So, for him, Bible consistency means nothing.

Ask him or her to prove it.

He would say that all things against Christianity were destroyed. So, how can he prove it?

1over137 wrote:He would say that all things against Christianity were destroyed. So, how can he prove it?

To quote what Hitchens (a famous atheist) often used to say: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Byblos » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:50 pm

1over137 wrote:
He would say that all things against Christianity were destroyed. So, how can he prove it?


To quote what Hitchens (a famous atheist) often used to say: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

1over137 » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:25 pm

He would say that all things against Christianity were destroyed. So, how can he prove it?

people always find ignorance as the best path to reject God, what a shame

1over137 wrote:He would say that all things against Christianity were destroyed. So, how can he prove it?

What we have of the writing AGAINST Christianity tend to go in favour of what we know as orthodox Christianity and what is written in the NT.

The Council of Nicaea is a very popular target among some skeptics, but there isn't really much to it actually. Claims that the cannon was decided on and edited at Nicaea in a heated debate, the end result of which was the crushing of non orthodox ideas and the rewriting of history are pretty fanciful interpretations of what went on. It's fairly clear from the New Testament materials we have today as well as the writings of the Church Fathers that orthodoxy was well established very early. The council reaffirmed views on Scripture that were already dominant long before the council, and there likely wasn't nearly as much disagreement as some would say. Of course, if your friend wishes to posit that the Church simply repressed other views and destroyed evidence of what they had done he is entitled to do so, but he should be aware that such a claim is without evidence and is, actually, against the evidence. Any argument that rests on the claim that all evidence that supports it has been covered up while handwaving away evidence to the contrary as coming from a corrupt establishment is no better than a conspiracy theory, like that the World Trade Center was struck by missiles instead of planes, and should be treated as such.

What kind of things does your friend claim were put away?

Icthus wrote:The Council of Nicaea is a very popular target among some skeptics, but there isn't really much to it actually. Claims that the cannon was decided on and edited at Nicaea in a heated debate, the end result of which was the crushing of non orthodox ideas and the rewriting of history are pretty fanciful interpretations of what went on. It's fairly clear from the New Testament materials we have today as well as the writings of the Church Fathers that orthodoxy was well established very early. The council reaffirmed views on Scripture that were already dominant long before the council, and there likely wasn't nearly as much disagreement as some would say. Of course, if your friend wishes to posit that the Church simply repressed other views and destroyed evidence of what they had done he is entitled to do so, but he should be aware that such a claim is without evidence and is, actually, against the evidence. Any argument that rests on the claim that all evidence that supports it has been covered up while handwaving away evidence to the contrary as coming from a corrupt establishment is no better than a conspiracy theory, like that the World Trade Center was struck by missiles instead of planes, and should be treated as such.

What kind of things does your friend claim were put away?

Quite correct and it is amazing that with all this "crushing" that here we are, in 2012, talking about it, LOL !

Ichtus wrote:The Council of Nicaea is a very popular target among some skeptics,

One question from me. Why does everyone keep referring to such people as "skeptics"?

Reactionary wrote:

Ichtus wrote:The Council of Nicaea is a very popular target among some skeptics,

One question from me. Why does everyone keep referring to such people as "skeptics"?

I don't really know. I suppose I use it because it's the term I hear most often, even if it doesn't always fit. Also, though most of the people I know who call themselves "skeptics" are atheists, one doesn't have to be an atheist to be skeptical of Christianity, so it sort of fits a broader range. It's used so often it sort of lost its original meaning to many people, especially on the internet.

Why does a smart woman have credulous/dull/foolish friends?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Why does a smart woman have credulous/dull/foolish friends?

FL

Why did Jesus eat with sinners and tax collectors?

RickD wrote:Why did Jesus eat with sinners and tax collectors?

Yes! You have a point!

FL