Is there any proof for Christianity?

Is there any proof for Christianity?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    For my senses to give me data that point to Christianity being true. Derp.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes anon the great existential questions of metaphysics have all been answered complete with empirical proofs that you just haven't heard of yet, and Oyish will surely deliver them to you

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, moron, I will not invest all my life, time, money and energy into something that will never have any impact in anything I will ever experience just because it sounds deep to you. Give me a good reason to believe, or I won't. Simple as.

      You don't prove axioms and inference rules, you build proofs from them.

      Correct. Now build a proof that God exists from axioms that will sound reasonable to the average non-moron.

      You put a lot of faith in your senses....
      We see what we are meant to see.

      Create a computer game, and you'll quickly realise that the agents within the world will only detect what you've told them to pick up on.

      >You put a lot of faith in your senses....
      So do you. The problem is that you also put a lot of faith in stuff that, unlike your senses, are completely useless in life.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        God is an action, moron, and you don't prove axioms.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >God is an action
          Ah yes, the God that I perform every morning upon waking up...

          >you don't prove axioms.
          Indeed. Now prove God exists from axioms that will sound reasonable to the average non-moron.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That should have said "God is an axiom" rather than action. Although if I think about it for more than half a second, "God" is an undefined primitive, it's God's existence which is axiomatic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's God's existence which is axiomatic
            What can you prove with this axiom that a) is true, and b) is impossible to prove without or with a simpler alternative axiom?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Any/everything. God is a constant specification, the elements of which are His laws.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Any/everything.
            Friendly reminder that inconsistent logical systems are utter trash, and that NOT building them was at the center of 20th century research in mathematics.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Friendly reminder that the 20th century ended over two decades ago and that some degree of familiarity with fuzzy sets is a good idea if your career does anything with logic in any way. But, fair point, it should read any true thing, but with the proviso that what evaluates to true depends upon which states are taken as members of the CS and to what degree.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >any true thing
            Such as?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Codes of conduct for living a fortunate life. Sinful acts are acts which invite misfortune, or at least acts which did invite misfortune in some context. But this works as prescriptive analysis, not deduction. Sinning isn't certain to invoke misfortune, and refraining from sin isn't certain to bring good fortune. This lack of certainty is free will.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Codes of conduct for living a fortunate life.
            Codes of conduct aren't "true" or "false." They're useful or not. I asked for a true statement. Try again.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But this works as prescriptive analysis, not deduction
            p-values and confidence intervals are truths, Anon, but the Israelites didn't have R.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >p-values and confidence intervals are truths
            No they're not you drooling moron. They're tools.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, the model itself is a tool, the statistics are true with respect to the model.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what you said. Admit you were wrong.

            The answer is obviously the resurrection.

            >thing that didn't happen

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            that didn't happen
            Source?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of the billions of people documented resurrected, and there's no reason for it to be different for yet-another-random-Jew-in-the-desert-2000-years-ago.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >None of the billions of people documented resurrected
            Again... source? You're telling me "person didn't resurrect because people don't resurrect" as though this isn't a pseudo-circular reasoning.
            >no reason
            There are plenty of reasons. Study history and the scriptures.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A man rose from the dead
            >I am doubtful of that as that is something that doesn't happen to my my knowledge. Do they u have any evidence for this claim
            >Prove it didn't happen

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Study history and the scriptures.
            History doesn't say le magic israelite resurrected, and the scriptures talk about moronic shit like talking snakes and floating zoos.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't prove axioms and inference rules, you build proofs from them.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Differences in religion aside, YHWH, El, Allah whatever you want to call him (the God of Israel) has to be the true God since Christianity and Islam are the #1 religions in the world. If he was a false god Judaism would have remained a tribal religion, and never would have spread to the rest of the world. This is how I see it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      In the past, when they weren't the largest, were they not true? and in the future, should they lose their status, will they become false?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's the fact that they survived until the 21st century, while dominating every other non israeli religion that leads me to believe that the God of the israelites is the creator of the universe. There's just no way this would have happened if he was an imaginary tribal deity.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There's just no way this would have happened if he was an imaginary tribal deity.
          Why not?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a tribal deity of a small tribe of israelites conquered all Greek, Roman, Nordic, and Middle Eastern gods

            Yeah, that just magically happened without any divine intervention of any kind.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What about Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Siberian, and Australian ones?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The lingering pagan gods are irrelevant. The God of the israelites replaced the most important gods, and now when any westerner thinks of a god they think of the Biblical God. Thus, I conclude that he is the living creator.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >most
            >population of China and India combined makes up most of the human population worldwide
            >China has state-enforced Heavenly Mandate
            >India has a gorillion deities

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No one cares about Indian streetshitters or Chinese bug people. Yahweh replaced the most important gods, the gods of the Europeans.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're an election tourist? Pfft, nevermind.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're trans btw

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            "6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. 8 And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them."

            For lack of trying. God likes Europe I guess.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >mentions of my general direction in a dusty book make me feel good inside, therefore, it is real
            >doesn't matter that balkans don't count as cumskins

            you're trans btw

            Nice buzzword. My wiener is very much intact. If you're so quick to jump to muh trannies, you sure seem to think about them a lot, for a "male".

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You put a lot of faith in your senses....
    We see what we are meant to see.

    Create a computer game, and you'll quickly realise that the agents within the world will only detect what you've told them to pick up on.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the agents within the world will only detect what you've told them to pick up on.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        A Calvin Pepe. Now I've seen it all.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The problem is others pick up different ideas or have no idea.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The resurrection of Jesus

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >being the meme

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most Christians aren‘t sola scriptura / regulative rule troglodytes, and not even the ones who claim to be actually are, given they rely on others‘ interpretations and the traditions of their churches. Completely unhinged schizos aside.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don't use words you don't understand.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Briefly, Christianity wholey depends on the veracity of the gospels. The Gospels are among the best preserved ancient documents we have, which is impressive due it's decentralized transmission. (As opposed to Islam which was more top-down.) I'm not a huge fan of James White but in this particular area he has done great work. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you believe the gospel accounts. We certainly do take less than 4 historical witness accounts as fact for other historical events, particularly involving Rome. Seems like the gospels should be relatively reliable as historical documents in that regard. The problem is that it seems more likely that there was an alternative motivation behind the gospels than if miraculous events actually took place. There are no accounts outside the gospel. All of them would have came from israeli ties, and there is some change that parts of Mark were based directly off Matthew, which makes it 3 distinct accounts instead of 4. It just does not seem likely to me. Now, if there was a ROMAN source that corroborated one or all of the gospels, that would be must stronger evidence as it would have likely not been a collaborator or peer. Side note: Luke would have likely also written Acts, which has more obvious historical grounding than the gospels. If he wrote Acts, and Acts was accurate, perhaps his gospel account can also be trusted? Apparently the travel times he lists would have been accurate to our modern understanding of how long it would take to get from each place he mentioned. Food for thought.

    tl;dr no other than the gospels which are probably more reliable than people think but still not enough to be definitive given the nature of their claims.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know, is there any proof for history?

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    In case you haven’t realized yet op, the answer is no. There is no proof. It’s based on a collection of ancient mythology. It’s as true as praying to Hermes or Zeus.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm surprised it's still being discussed in 2023 CE when it's logically disproven by the problem of evil

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >reddit of evil

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    One way to approach this question is to look at the various types of evidence that support the truth claims of Christianity, such as historical, philosophical, scientific, moral, and experiential evidence. These types of evidence can provide rational grounds for believing that Christianity is made up bullshit, even if they do not amount to absolute or mathematical certainty. For example, one of the web search results that I found says, "Christianity can provide the same level of practical certainty for the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible, and other Christian truth-claims that is accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt in scientific, legal, and historical matters." This of course is so laughable that no thinking adult could take it seriously.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christ's resurrection.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Asking a question as dumb as this one just demonstrates that you already have an idol of your own and you're unwilling to give it up, even though Christianity is much more satisfying.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Asking for proof of something
      >a question as dumb as this one

      If you were so confident in your belief you would be able to answer.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The answer is obviously the resurrection.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          For OP, answering with Jesus resurrected is like answering with Muhammad ascended to Heaven. It's all fiction for an atheist, and the only reason you believe in one and not the other is because you consider your religion to be true and others false.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And likewise for the atheist - the opinion on thruth or falsity of the resurrection is based purely on pre-existing biases.
            The proof for Christianity is Christ's resurrection just like the proof for the big bang is background cosmic radiation. It might be inaccessible to you personally, but it is proof nontheless. If the question is strictly only about proofs that are accessible to a person within some short time-span, I'm afraid the question has to be asked differently. You could verify with Christ himself if you achieve mystic vision of him, but that would take some time lol

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There isn't even proof Jesus was a real person. Christianity is total bullshit.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *