Logical Argument for Christianity

[TealTerror]

So far, I have not seen anyone actually make a logical argument for why Christianity is true. I've seen several people threaten me with hellfire, but none make an actual argument. In fact, one person said that there is no logical argument for Christianty--but insisted that I convert anyway!

So, I ask you here: Please give an actual logical argument for Christianity. Give me a good reason to believe, not the typical "You'll go to heaven!!!" stuff.

I await my responses with bated breath.

[TheOneAndOnly]

The arguments generally revolve around the following topics:

1) You can't account for human knowledge and reasoning without a God. (Although here the term God should bare little resemblence to the Abrahamic idea)

2) You can't get something from nothing, cousin Merl told me. Therefore God exists, therefore Jesus was resurrected. Praise the Lord!

3) Early Christianity should have failed had the resurrection not been real. Although this one seems a bit odd since, early Christians had no way of telling whether the resurrection was real or not. It depended entirely on their gullability.

4) Atheism can't explain human morality - only the Christian idea of God can. This one makes no sense. See Jason et al for further adventures in fairytale land.

5) The prophecies of the Bible all came true. Who would have thought it?

6) The CS Lewis approach - Christianity is just so absurd it has to be true.

7) I saw Jesus in a dream and cried when I woke up and then I read the bible and then I went to church and then the holy spirit filled me and so don't you see? Christianity is true.

8) If god didn't exist life wouldn't be worth living.

Edited after seeing Salvationfound's post:

9) The universe looks designed. Evolution is stupid.

10) Miracles happen. I prayed to pass an exam I didn't deserve to pass, but God passed me anyway. God is truly great.

There's probably some others too.

[salvationfound]

To believe in the resurrection of Jesus you need to first believe in the
possibility of miracles. To believe in miracles you need to first believe in the
possibility of God. So we need to start there. If you can't get past that
part then there is no reason to bother going further.

Anthropic principle:
The idea that the universe exhibits elements of design specifically for the
purpose of containing life.

Robert Jastrow founder and former head of Nasa's space studies of the
Goddard Institute says the anthropic principle is the best evidence of God to
come out of science.

If the origin of the universe and the origin of life are not enough to convince
you of the idea of God then you'll never believe the resurrection which by
comparision is a less astounding miracle.

[Calvinist4Him]

So far, I have not seen anyone actually make a logical argument for why Christianity is true. I've seen several people threaten me with hellfire, but none make an actual argument. In fact, one person said that there is no logical argument for Christianty--but insisted that I convert anyway!

So, I ask you here: Please give an actual logical argument for Christianity. Give me a good reason to believe, not the typical "You'll go to heaven!!!" stuff.

I await my responses with bated breath.

How do you account for the principals of logic by which an argument is "logical" or illogical?

[TheOneAndOnly]

How do you account for the principals of logic by which an argument is "logical" or illogical?

This would come under (1).

[jason]

So, I ask you here: Please give an actual logical argument for Christianity. Give me a good reason to believe, not the typical "You'll go to heaven!!!" stuff.

What did you have in mind ?

I mean a logical sylogism for the truth of christianity is easy enough to construct. From the correct but worthless

1. If 1 + 1 = 2 then Christianity true
2. 1 + 1 does = 2

3. Therefore Christianity is true

through to the actually useful,

1. If Christ Rose from the dead then his truth claims are trustworthy and correct and christianity is true
2. Christ Rose from the dead

3. Therefore Christianity is true

are all logical arguments for the truth of chrisitianity. Yet I doubt this is what you had in mind.

Consider argument two however. Surely that is reasonable, the question then becomes one of the truth of its premises. But that is not a "logical argument" as such, but a question of history.

So I think it would be best if you stated exactly what you mean and what you have in mind when you as for a LogicalArgument^TM.

Jason

[jason]

4) Atheism can't explain human morality - only the Christian idea of God can. This one makes no sense. See Jason et al for further adventures in fairytale land.

I see you still don't understand what is being argued on that point.

Jason

[TheOneAndOnly]

1. If Christ Rose from the dead then his truth claims are trustworthy and correct and christianity is true
2. Christ Rose from the dead

3. Therefore Christianity is true

are all logical arguments for the truth of chrisitianity. Yet I doubt this is what you had in mind.

Consider argument two however. Surely that is reasonable, the question then becomes one of the truth of its premises. But that is not a "logical argument" as such, but a question of history.

1. isn't a matter of history. Why should we trust Jesus even if he did come back from the dead? Secondly Jesus didn't even write the doctrines of Christianity.

[salvationfound]

The universe looks designed. Evolution is stupid.

Who said anything about evolution. I don't believe it contradicts my faith.
I don't believe in it based on what I know about the facts but I don't
believe whether or not it is true has anything to do with whether or not
Christianity or God is true.

[Calvinist4Him]

This would come under (1).

Do you not agree that the OP begs the question, what is a logical argument?

[jason]

1. isn't a matter of history.

No but the truth of the resurrection itself is. Which vindicates the claim.

Why should we trust Jesus even if he did come back from the dead?

Are you seriously grasping at this straw ?

Are you really claiming that if you knew for sure the Christ rose from the dead, after being really dead and starting to decompose for 3 days, that you would still reject his message ?

Secondly Jesus didn't even write the doctrines of Christianity.

What does that prove ?

And besides that claim would be partially in error, after all, his words while incarnate are recorded in the Gospels. I wasn't aware he had to put pen to paper to count as providing the information.

Seems like a strange standard to use. Dare I say, an entirely unreasonable one.

Jason

[TheOneAndOnly]

I see you still don't understand what is being argued on that point.

I know that when you're involved strange things begin to happen. Such as this strange vague term, Natural Law comes out of nowhere and get's thrown around. I have also noted your uncanny ability to guess correctly God's objective morality. Well, you get it right most of the time, I still don't think you're in favour of stoning adulterers though.

[TealTerror]

To believe in the resurrection of Jesus you need to first believe in the
possibility of miracles. To believe in miracles you need to first believe in the
possibility of God. So we need to start there. If you can't get past that
part then there is no reason to bother going further.

I admit that God could possibly exist.

Anthropic principle:
The idea that the universe exhibits elements of design specifically for the
purpose of containing life.

There are several problems with that argument:
1) You have no way of knowing whether, if those elements were changed, life wouldn't exist. Maybe life as we knew it wouldn't exist, but you can't possibly know if life wouldn't exist.
2) How do you know that those elements must have been chosen randomly at the beginning of the universe? Perhaps those elements are what they are because they couldn't possibly be anything else.
3) What if there are an infinite number of parallel universes, or that there has been an infinite number of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches" in the past, all having different values? It'd be no surprise we exist in the one variation that supports life.

Robert Jastrow founder and former head of Nasa's space studies of the
Goddard Institute says the anthropic principle is the best evidence of God to
come out of science.

I agree.

If the origin of the universe and the origin of life are not enough to convince
you of the idea of God then you'll never believe the resurrection which by
comparision is a less astounding miracle.

No, actually, it's much more astounding. We can postulate on the origin of life and/or the universe without accounting for a God. Not so with the resurrection.

How do you account for the principals of logic by which an argument is "logical" or illogical?

My mind.

So I think it would be best if you stated exactly what you mean and what you have in mind when you as for a LogicalArgumentTM.

What I mean is an argument that is not only true in terms of syntax, but also in semantics.
To be true in terms of syntax, it has to have a logical flow, like your two arguments you posted.
To be true in semantics, all the assumptions and conclusions have to stand up to assault.

[jason]

I know that when you're involved strange things begin to happen. Such as this strange vague term, Natural Law comes out of nowhere and get's thrown around.

It is not a vague term. It is quite well understood.

But what I was noting is that you misunderstand the nature of the objection to attack it the way you do. But that is for another thread.

I have also noted your uncanny ability to guess correctly God's objective morality.

Why would you expect otherwise when we all have the Natural Law embedded in the deep structures of our mind ? But again, topic for another thread.

I still don't think you're in favour of stoning adulterers though.

I would be in the biblical context in ancient Israel's situation and given the problems it would cause to the whole community.

But then again I am in favour of capitally punishing all crimes that present a serious danger to the welfare of the community as a whole.

But again, another thread.

Jason

[jason]

To be true in terms of syntax, it has to have a logical flow, like your two arguments you posted.
To be true in semantics, all the assumptions and conclusions have to stand up to assault.

Well you know have a logical argument. The question is to investigate the truth of the premises of argument 2.

We could use argument 1, but I doubt you would accept the premises used.

Jason