How would you convince me?

No one should have to convince another.

The seeker will find the answers they need though the process of exploration and discovery.

In my opinion.

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence


"As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000."

I would explain to you that out instincts make us afraid of the dark because of how difficult it is to detect nocturnal predators; hence our belief in demons etc.

then i'll tell you about the concept of right and wrong and how it's a moral code shared between your entire society based on what's best for the whole society as well as individual rights

i'll then tell you that there once men who achieved great wisdom and power (christ, krishna, hercules)

and that if you want that power, the key to it all lies in every single booth in this fair but it has to be filtered out from the nonsense which is in every single booth in this fair.

And this is where you get your information from? Matt Slick? Do you know much about the guy? What credentials does he have? Does he have any formal qualifications?

Anyway, we'll disregard for the moment the fact that the guy is a complete prick and move on.

Do you even understand what he's trying to say here? I think if you did you'd have second thoughts about using his assertion soup as evidence for the resurrection.



What the hell does that even mean? Is he trying to say that the majority of ancient texts are Greek New Testament Documents? If so:
1. Bulls***. https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/
2. Even if that were true, how does that prove the historical accuracy of the Bible?
3. Where does Slick get the number 5600 from? Is there a list he provides? It seems like he gets it from some religious writers but because I don't have the book I can't be sure.



Once again, what the f*** does that even mean and where does that number come from? Looks like he just made it up as there is no source for it but if he means that all the (unknown) authors say exactly the same thing about the things they write about that it absolute crap.

The inconsistencies between the gospels are well known.



Source? Geez does this guy just say stuff and expect that people will believe him?
And once again, what the f*** does that prove? There could be 1 million copies in 1000 different languages but it doesn't make it historically accurate.



And again, what the hell does that mean? I really don't get 1) where he gets that figure and 2) how that means the Bible is historically accurate.

Glen, I suggest you start your Bible studies somewhere other than carm.org

yeah dude, i hate when people come with bs figures and facts and expect to pass it off as evidence

And what on earth does it all mean even if the "bs figures and facts" are correct? So we have an "uncorrupted" book. Great.

I've walked away tired and dismayed from another forum where Christians and Muslims seem constantly engaged in a "my book is better than your book" slanging match.

Quite frankly the whole argument seems pointless. Surely if just a smidgin of the infinite mercy and love of the claimed authorship of said books rubbed off on the readership we would have a better world? But no, the "fun" seems to be in the argument itself.

I'm saying God is one of two possible (both incredible) causes for the Big Bang.



....the soft or open-minded atheists anyway....



The universe is evidence that needs an explanation. God is an one, and it happened spontaneously out of nothing is another one. With no evidence whatsoever either way, they're both equally improbable.




No need to be snide. I've seen it so many times before, and I'm a lapsed Christian myself. Your whole argument is about discrediting Christianity and other "revealed" fabricated religions. It's shooting fish in a barrel. Your disbelief in a creator God is as equally improbable as a belief in a laissez faire God. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

This will probably draw another snide comment, but I think your atheism is an overreaction to the falsehoods you were raised under. The only difference between adopting one belief over the other is the choice between hope and the despair of retaliation.

Of course there's the third choice of ignoring the superego as best we can.

That the NT contains history is not in contention. Reasonable evidence for one single supernatural act that isn't infinitely more likely to be human fabrication, misperception, doesn't exist. Modern archaeology, epigraphy and even the writings of the early church founders defending their religion, continue to make that likelihood even more infinite.

Fair enough.



My position is that there is a possibility that a supernatural being exists but that if it does exist it's certainly not the supernatural being of the Bible or the Koran.



Is there no evidence for the Big Bang?

Oh, that's my position absolutely. I just give the odds at 50-50, and favor God over none for no other reason than hope. I'd substitute "any revealed religion" for "Bible or the Koran", Book of the Dead, whatever.




Lots of evidence. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a major piece of such evidence.

But there's no evidence at all for even reasonable speculation, much less a theory, for what preceded the Big Bang or what could have caused it. It doesn't change my 50-50 odds, but if God did create a self sustaining universe from which there would be no evidence for or against His existence, concealing Himself behind the Big Bang, a very remote event, would be perfect.

With everything we have learned about the universe in the last 100 years, relativity, quantum mechanics etc., we're not one Planck Time or Planck Length closer to seeing beyond that event.

Fair enough.