I don't doubt the power of the man who brings the dead back to life and heals the sick by touching them

>>18661669
What reason is there to believe those things really happened other than a very old book that purports to be true says they did?

>>18661653
We see perfectly that this is circular. Which is why we usually don't argue "because YHWH said it". We usually point out that the source of all being must be the source of goodness and morality, while pointing out why we believe the God of the Bible is that Source. That someone claims something will naturally make an appearance but it's pretty much a strawman to reduce the whole idea to just this.

>>18661691
Yahweh isn't the source of all being. And even if he was the source of all being would naturally also include all evil. Evil is not an "absence of good", it can be measured.

>>18661691
if god was evil and he hid that from you, could you know?

>>18661703
>Yahweh isn't the source of all being.
How did you learn this?
>naturally also include all evil
Only and only if ethical dualism is true. Which I don't see that it is. Dualisms of all kinds seem to be generally the less probable explanations for whatever question is at hand, from consciousness to ethics.
>[evil] can be measured
In what units?

>>18661705
No, but I probably wouldn't worry about it either. There is no end to if-scenarios where I get fooled by something epistemologically powerful than me. Is there a ghost behind me that's only revealing himself to pre-inquisition Tijuanese 10 year olds? I wouldn't know. I wouldn't really worry about it either.

>>18661691
You attach the two by a leap of faith not any tangible method. You can do this with whatever rules you want. The god concept being circular is an issue because the definition which cannot be falsified, of god, can stretch and contort in any form you want it to, it’s this possibility that makes it incoherent.

>>18661751
I'd say there's quite a lot of ground between a mere leap and a tangible method. If you wouldn't say that then I'm afraid you condemn your own worldview to being mostly made of leaps, as methodologies are fairly scarce both in daily life and in philosophy in general. No objections if you can take that on the chin though.
> definition which cannot be falsified, of god, can stretch and contort in any form you want it to
I'm not sure that's how definitions work. I would love God to be forgiving pre-repentance but sadly that doesn't pass. The concept cannot contort into any form I like precisely because it is already defined. You can doubt that the definition tracks, and wonder if there is any methodology available that your biases would find acceptable, but that's about it...

>>18661724
>I wouldn't worry about it goyim

>>18661767
Theoretically infinite religions make incompatible claims about god which can neither be approached nor condemned. They are idle until they borrow from work which has no attachment to abstract theodicies which can be done in a closet until you go insane. Insanity itself even becomes an argument for some of these people, they hallucinate in all cultures different images of divinity. God concept does what work?

>>18661681
NTA but Jesus' contemporaries who had the best means and methods in the the world to investigate him did so. The heads of two governments and both came away believing that he was divine. And this was preserved in official government records.

Movses Khorenatsi records a letter from Emperor Tiberius to Abgar, king of country near Israel called Osroene, stating that “Pilate has officially informed us of the miracles of Jesus.” After receiving Pilate’s report, Tiberius proposed that Jesus be recognized as a god. The Senate rejected it, but Tiberius retained his judgment and ordered that anyone persuaded by Jesus could receive him among the gods. You can read the letters right from the archives that Khorenatsi had personally visited here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0859.htm

And King Abgar conducted his own investigation. Government representatives of his had gone to Israel and reported what they were hearing about a healer called Jesus back to Abgar. Abgar was very sick and so he sent a message to Jesus asking him to come heal him. The historian Eusebius transcribed the records of this from the official state archives of Edessa, the capital of Osroene, you can read them here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

Think what this really means. State intelligence apparati of some of the most powerful players in the region (indeed THE most powerful in the world with Tiberius) investigated Jesus and determined that he truly had divine power.

>>18661724
>No
if its not impossible for god to be evil and hide it, and if he was you couldnt know it, then >>18661691
>the source of all being must be the source of goodness and morality
no longer can be concluded.

>>18661779
I didn't make a habit of worrying about infinite theoretical religions or of diagnosting people with things I was never trained in diagnosing so I'm afraid your post doesn't speak to my concerns, at least not in a way I can understand.

>>18661806
>we cannot conclude this because there exists a what-if where it's undetectably not so
I'm afraid this has no convincing power. I mean, what if logic gained sentience and secretly declared this precise argument invalid this past Tuesday? Poof, your argument goes out the window in my make-believe what-if scenario and so by your standard it must go out the window now.

>>18661825
**diagnosing.

mother-trucker, dude.

>>18661825
>what if logic gained sentience and secretly declared this precise argument invalid this past Tuesday
you are missing whats happening here.
YOU are the one that made a universal positive absolute claim:
>the source of all being MUST be the source of goodness and morality
i have proven that there is a non-zero chance that it can be otherwise. therefore your universal positive "MUST" claim is wrong and your good god is not proven to be neccessary.

>>18661834
That does not land for two reasons:
>i have proven that there is a non-zero chance
You proved you can articulate a hypothesis. That its likelihood is above complete zero was never established.
>>the source of all being MUST be the source of goodness and morality
>i have proven ... that it can be otherwise
Not really, you just proved that the goodness might be illusory, seeing that you invoked hidden evil at the root and end game of it all. God, in your what-if, is still the source of all goodness, there just happens to be zero actual goodness. Though if you're invoking some kind of extreme dualism, you might get to make your case, as circular as it will end up becoming.

>>18661855
>That its likelihood is above complete zero was never established
it was established when you admitted you couldnt know if god was evil and he hid it. so if you cant actually know if the standard of good and evil is absolute and knowable or merely something made up by an evil god who for example, punishes innocents for someone elses crime (something yhwh does) and claims its good, then your standard of morallity is unknowable, and thus worthless and subject to gods mind (subjective).

>>18661915
>undetectable therefore more likely than 0
That does not follow.

>standard of good and evil is absolute...or merely something made up by an evil god
False dichotomy. All laws are "made up" by God.
>your standard of morality is unknowable
>your
The claim doesn't mention my standard of morality, it mentions the source of being and the source of goodness and morality. Whether I've figured the morality out or not isn't being discussed.

>>18661935
>>undetectable therefore more likely than 0
>That does not follow.
if you cant say with certainty that its 100% true => non-0 chance that its the opposite.
>False dichotomy. All laws are "made up" by God.
then your morals are subjective as they are subject to gods mind and not objective truth.
>Whether I've figured the morality out or not isn't being discussed
its always funny when someone argues form this infinitely vague position from which he basically doesnt believe anything concrete from meanwhile his religion is the exact opposite and requires you to believe very specific things.
if you dont know if god is entirely good, then you are not christian.

>>18661653
>Yahweh fulfills hundreds of prophecies to prove his trustworthiness

>>18661998
name 1 ot prophecy jesus fulfiled in its actual context

>>18662000
I said Yahweh

>>18662166
if you dont think jesus is yhwh then you disagree with basically all of christianity, but sure, maybe you're a muslim or jewish, in which case:
1. prove that yhwh fulfiled those prophecies and its not something that someone just said happened
2. if god was a liar and wanted to hide that from you, how would you know? knowing this is required in order for yhwh "proving his trustworthiness" to be of any value.

>>18662172
Ok if you think Yahweh is Jesus then he fulfilled the 2000+ prophecies documented in the Bible

>Yahweh
Instant filter. Your argument is trash, and your brain is trash. Kill yourself.

>>18661799
These are well known forgeries and have been known to be forgeries for centuries

>>18662214
How do you want me to spell it you special snowflake, YHWH?

>>18662201
you cant prove jesus fulfiled even 1 ot prophecy in context. not 1.

>>18662220
How about "Jesus"? And I'm not the one you have to worry about. God is going to torture you forever, and you're just making it worse for yourself. Keep going!

>>18662234
>God is going to torture you forever
He sounds pretty evil to want to torture anyone forever. You are evil too for endorsing it

>>18662243
Great! Enjoy burning.

>>18661825
>I didn't make a habit of worrying about infinite theoretical religions or of diagnosting people with things I was never trained in diagnosing so I'm afraid your post doesn't speak to my concerns, at least not in a way I can understand.
If you accept the God-concept as self-referentially infinite and valid by all accounts then, the seed of deconstruction is within you, unconsciously dismantling your mind virus. This is how it started and you are on a blessed path anon. Science loves you.

>>18662225
Here's 351
https://www.newtestamentchristians.com/bible-study-resources/351-old-testament-prophecies-fulfilled-in-jesus-christ/

>>18662396
The vast majority of these are not prophecies. Of the ones that are they either aren't about the messiah or Jesus doesn't actually fulfill them.

>>18662396
as >>18662405 said.

so just pick 1 prophecy that you yourself can actually prove and explain jesus fulfiled IN CONTEXT from the old testament, instead of googling and pasting a list of bullshit that you've never checked in your life.

File: 3.jpg (107 KB, 1080x867)

107 KB JPG

>>18661653
>Study of the Hebrew Bible, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, characterized as the belligerent god of the Hebrew Bible.

>In contrast to other leaders of the nascent Christian Church, however, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the scriptures of Judaism. Marcion did not claim that these were false. Instead, he asserted that they were entirely true, but were to be read in an absolutely literalistic manner, one which led him to develop an understanding that Yahweh was not the same God spoken of by Jesus.

https://xenosarc.substack.com/p/yahweh-the-god-of-the-old-testament

>>18662546
Jesus directly threatened people with having their bodies and souls destroyed in hell, he's just as guilty of this as yahweh

>>18661989
>if you cant say with certainty that its 100% true => non-0 chance that its the opposite.
Again, that simply does not follow.
>then your morals are subjective as they are subject to gods mind and not objective truth.
If you're willing to make physical laws "subjective" by definition, no objections.
>infinitely vague position
The claim made 0 references to my subjective understanding of morality. How that reads as vague to you, I don't know.

>>18661799
>the best means and methods in the the world to investigate him
>Asking around about people's opinions and then instead of just open sourcing the testimonies just selectively compile them in a book that pretends to be there in the first person 30 years earlier basically presenting the equivalent of a biopic as proof