There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[ElishaElijah]

Nope, deleted since none of it is even close to anything I said, try again:

Sheldon said: ↑
Nope it's not just my opinion, it is a well established fact.

CITATION
"The original texts of the gospels had existed for about a hundred years with no names. The Church Fathers in the 2nd century CE assigned the names; none of the writers signed their work. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. One exception is Luke, who says he interviewed witnesses but gives no further details. In their attempt to provide backgrounds for the writers the Church Fathers tried to align them as close to the original circle of Jesus as possible. They were also aware of a fundamental problem; the first disciples of Jesus were fishermen from Galilee who could not read and write the level of Greek in these documents."

"The gospels were produced from c. 70 CE to perhaps 100 CE. Their portraits of Jesus, who he was, and why he was here, differ in relation to both later reflections and changes in the demographics of the earliest Christian communities over time. The four gospels vary in some of the details of Jesus. The two nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are thrown together under the Christmas tree, although they differ in many ways. (Matthew has the star and the Magi; Luke has the stable and the shepherds.) However, when the gospels agree on details, this does not indicate four different sources. Mark, being first, was used and edited by the other three."

This time maybe read what it says, and follow the citation.

I have read what it says and this is someone’s take that you happen to agree with and you’re entitled…
There are other views as well, for example the harmony of the gospels:
What Is the Harmony of the Gospels?

 

[Five Solas]

You're in a debate forum, get over it or move one.

The only thing I agree with. This is a debate, not a scientific forum.
I debate my faith and statements of belief with whoever wish to engage but that places me under no obligation to prove anything to anyone.
If you find that unsatisfactory, move on...

 

[ElishaElijah]

The only thing I agree with. This is a debate, not a scientific forum.
I debate my faith and statements of belief with whoever wish to engage but that places me under no obligation to prove anything to anyone.
If you find that unsatisfactory, move on...

ev·i·dence
(ĕv′ĭ-dəns)
n.
1.
a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis.
b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications: saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face.
2. Law
a. The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
b. The set of legal rules determining what testimony, documents, and objects may be admitted as proof in a trial.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove: Her curiosity is evidenced by the number of books she owns.

Well, according to the evidence presented in this debate/discussion I can tell who has had an encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and who has not.

 

[KWED]

I assume Anselm used the word as a comparative adjective.

Yes, but "greater" I'm what sense? Size? Powers? Reputation? Generosity? Justice? Mercy? etc...

 

[Sheldon]

Except there are facts that confirmed the facts of the resurrection,

No there are not.

the people with the facts have died and now the fact remains which some doubt so they call it hearsay

They are hearsay, by definition, seriously look the word up in any dictionary.

someone stands before them with a changed life

Someone on an internet forum makes an unevidenced claim to have changed their life, and makes the unevidenced assumption this means the belief they cite as the reason, is somehow validated by this alleged change, despite the fact others make the identical claim for their belief in a different deity, and religion.

When Jesus returns the facts will again be confirmed and then what will you do?

When Harry potter is shown to be true, wizardry will be real, I am not holding my breath.

 

[Sheldon]

Their is only 1 Body of Christ which is His Bride.

Booble google splurge, since we are stringing nonsensical random words together.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No there are not.

Facts are facts, believe them, deny them or accept them:
Twelve Undeniable Facts that Prove the Resurrection

 

[ElishaElijah]

Booble google splurge, since we are stringing nonsensical random words together.

There aren’t thousands of sects there is 1 Body of Christ and He is the Head of the Body. What’s so hard to understand?

 

[Sheldon]

Double down is a term used in gambling, seems the gamble is all yours seen as all you have is a what if it didn’t happen

I know what it means, and you are doubling down, by responding to cogent arguments with repetition of your claims, it seems to be all you have, that and blind denial of facts.

like the Bible and historians of that time period have said and recorded.

Well there you go, there isn't a single contemporary account of anything the gospels claim, yet you double down on this false claim.

All you’ve said is the name wasn’t listed on the Gospels until later

Not even remotely what I said, again you're doubling down on a false claim. The earliest written record of the gospels had no authorship, this is a fact no credible biblical scholar would deny. The name Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictional, and didn't even appear in early Christian record until the second century. No amount of denials here will change this fact, only make you look ever more desperate to blindly defend your beliefs.

You’re also gambling with the fact that many witnesses to the life changing power of the Gospel is still active and available to everyone who calls on the name of the Lord in truth, today.

There is no gamble, this woeful paraphrasing of Pascal's wager is pretty funny, and facile. There are over 45000 different sects of Christianity alone, what does that tell us.

I’m confident and positive about what I’ve experienced, that God did deliver me, that He is also empowering me to live a holy life and I will receive eternal life forever with Him in the next.

Oh well, since you have doubled down with a repletion of your own biased subjective opinion...

This is something a skeptic does not have,

Blind bias, yes on that at least we can agree.

just questions, doubt and hopelessness in the afterlife.

I am with Einstein on this: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts."

 

[Sheldon]

Well, according to the evidence presented in this debate/discussion I can tell who has had an encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and who has not.

I still don't believe your subjective unevidenced claim. Don't feel bad though, I wouldn't believe any subjective unevidenced claim, least of all for supernatural inexplicable magic from archaic superstitions.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I still don't believe your subjective unevidenced claim. Don't feel bad though, I wouldn't believe any subjective unevidenced claim, least of all for supernatural inexplicable magic from archaic superstitions.

Some more facts:The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection

 

[Sheldon]

Facts are facts, believe them, deny them or accept them:
Twelve Undeniable Facts that Prove the Resurrection

There are no facts supporting the superstitious magic of any resurrection. That link is hilarious fair play, right at the start: "All four Gospels report the resurrection "

The Harry Potter novels report wizardry, and we know who wrote them, unlike the gospels.

 

[ElishaElijah]

There is no gamble, this woeful paraphrasing of Pascal's wager is pretty funny, and facile. There are over 45000 different sects of Christianity alone, what does that tell us.

The Bible is the Word of God and that is the authority for any Fellowship of Believers. There is only 1 Church not 45K different ones.

 

[Sheldon]

Some more facts:The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection

Hahahahahahahaha, first point:

1. Historical claims are strong when supported by multiple, independent sources.

There are no independent sources to substantiate unevidenced inexplicable magical resurrections, hilarious. Beyond the crucifixion of an historical Jesus nothing has any independent verification. You can double down on your false claim ad infinitum, it's preposterously wrong.

 

[ElishaElijah]

There are no facts supporting the superstitious magic of any resurrection. That link is hilarious fair play, right at the start: "All four Gospels report the resurrection "

The Harry Potter novels report wizardry, and we know who wrote them, unlike the gospels.

Just because you don’t accept the Gospels as legitimate doesn’t mean they aren’t. They have stood the test of time and are legitimate. Deny that all you want.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Hahahahahahahaha, first point:

More evidence that you’ve lost it.

 

[Sheldon]

The Bible is the Word of God

I don't believe your unevidenced subjective claim.

and that is the authority for any Fellowship of Believers.

Yeah biased believers making subjective claims about their beliefs, woahhh, I think I just got chills.

There is only 1 Church not 45K different ones.

Straw man fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Just because you don’t accept the Gospels as legitimate doesn’t mean they aren’t.

Straw man fallacy.

They have stood the test of time and are legitimate.

I don't believe your unevidenced subjective claim.

Deny that all you want.

I don't need to deny unevidenced subjective claims, I can simply dismiss them in the same vapid fashion they're offered.

 

[Sheldon]

More evidence

That you are holding an empty bag.

 

[Sheldon]

The only thing I agree with. This is a debate, not a scientific forum.

Straw man fallacy, and sine when has debate and science been mutually exclusive?

I debate my faith and statements of belief with whoever wish to engage but that places me under no obligation to prove anything to anyone.

Maybe you should look up debate in a dictionary, but it will require you to argue in defence of your claims.

If you find that unsatisfactory, move on...

Why would your inability or unwillingness to properly defend your claims in a debate forum, force me to move on?