Do atheists require a higher standard of proof in favor of Christ and Christianity than they do for their doubt and disbelief?
Do you require higher standards of evidence for Vishnu than you do lack of belief in Vishnu? Do you require higher standards of evidence for molemen than you do for a lack of belief in molemen?
It's purely logical not to believe in something in the absence of evidence.
BTW, I'm the only person on earth who can fly around like superman. I can't leave the city I'm in though so I unfortunately can't visit you. I also try to keep my power a secret from most people so I can't send vids or pics either. According to your logic, it's just as reasonable to believe me as it is not to believe me. According to the way you talk to atheists, I should expect you to believe me until you prove me wrong!
You're shifting the burden of proof.
Philosophical justification for belief in a god includes:
Concluding God is not the same as proving God. It doesn't matter what your philosophy is, you can not use it as empirical evidence. Honestly, that should be enough to end your arguments right there but I'll continue anyway.
- Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. Therefore, the universe must have a cause outside of itself (God)
I know you're a huge fan of this failed argument and that you're merely summarizing - thus the simplicity. Therefore, allow me to explain why the cosmological argument simply doesn't work.
First of all, philosophical arguments alone can't prove anything. Ever.
Second, this argument is merely another God Of The Gaps expression.
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God.
Even if we accept 1-3 to be true, there's zero evidence for 4. It's like saying, "My proof that God exists is that God did it. Checkmate atheists." It doesn't actually prove anything, it simply states the very thing you're supposed to prove as an already excepted premise. You can't do that with anything you're trying to prove. For example, if I want to prove you can run cars on grape soda, I can't make point 4. "This engine can run on grape soda" and point 5. "Therefore engines can run on grape soda".
There's a lot wrong with this argument but I'd like to address some of your other failed points. The following link goes into great detail as to why your argument doesn't hold any water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1DdWeK5XM&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk&index=5
- Life exists and has never been shown to originate from non-living things. Therefore, life must have a cause outside of itself (God).
* Life exists and has never been shown to have been created by a god, therefore it must have originated from non-living things.
1. The above argument doesn't prove that life came from non-life. It's just the same exact argument you made with the premise flipped around.
2. Why do you demand evidence that life came from non-life, but it's perfectly acceptable to conclude God did it without proof?
The proper solution goes as follows:
* We don't know what caused the origins of life. Therefore, we don't know.
Did we solve any mysteries? No, but at least it's honest.
- Sacred and secular histories (Josephus,etc.) dating back to the first century A.D.
Many religious texts are based off of actual people and events. That's like saying the movie "Inglorious B******s" is 100% factual because Hitler was a real person.
- Many early manuscripts for the Bible going back within a few generations of the actual events.
This statement is vague, but it's not really impressive for a document to predict something that has already happened.
- Evidence of Acts being written before the death of the Apostle Paul (circa 67 A.D.)
Which proves...?
- The long history and endurance of the nation of Israel
This doesn't prove the Bible to be true at all.
- The long, diverse history and endurance of the Christian Church
Hinduism has a greater history, therefore Hinduism > Christianity?
- The faith and endurance of martyrs including early martyrs in the first century A.D.
Unfortunately, people often die for things they believe in... and are wrong. 9/11.
- Long-standing observances such as the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles and the Lord's Supper
Essentially, "People have been saying it's real for years, therefore it's real."
- Testimonies of the changed lives of Christians
There are testimonies to support all religions. In fact, my life improved after I stopped believing in God because it changed the way I looked at the world and made me take a more logical approach to all my problems. I stopped waiting for stuff to happen and started making things happen myself. Personal testimony is completely unreliable.
A person who tells you about how much better there has become after accepting Vishnu as their savior will leave you feeling the same way I do when people tell me Christ has made their lives better.
- Fulfilled prophecy such as the virgin birth and Christ's birth in Bethlehem according to prophecies from Isaiah and Micah that were approximately 700-800 years old when they were fulfilled.
There's no evidence of a virgin birth. Not only that but Christ's birth story changes multiple times in the Bible and is inconsistent. Of course, it doesn't matter since there's no evidence of it having ever occurred in the first place. Even if there was, what evidence would you have that Mary was a virgin?
You keep talking bout proof but all you have are statements. "I have proof of God! That proof comes in the form of statements assumed to be true!"
AKA. Find something that likely referred to someone/something else and assume it referred to the Bible. Found an empty tomb? Assume it belonged to Jesus. You underestimate religion's ability to take historical landmarks and apply their own beliefs to the history of those landmarks - we see this with numerous religions.
Now to tackle your quote:
The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it.
I believe in things because they work. The following video goes over this and I can elaborate further in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdXuoeI1Cq8&index=10&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk
How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christi
This sounds like a child throwing a tantrum and shouting, "YOU CHEATED!" when he finds himself in checkmate after playing chess with a friend. In this case, it's a grown man going, "You didn't come to the same conclusion as me, you must have used double standards or something! It's the only way!"
Essentially, the man you quoted is humorously immature and would rather assume there are double standards being taken instead of trying to explain why people don't accept his arguments. He may sincerely believe his arguments to be rock tight, but if his arguments are related to any of the above, I've proven them to be completely flawed.
Keep in mind, I don't have to prove God doesn't exist unless I claim God - without a doubt - doesn't exist. There's a difference between saying, "I don't believe in God because I don't see any valid reason to believe in him" and "I know God doesn't exist".
[video=youtube;sNDZb0KtJDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk[/video]
Please watch the video until the end, because every time I link a video people respond to what they THINK the video is about and not what it's actually arguing.
Again, I must stress that philosophical arguments alone CAN NOT PROVE ANYTHING. You need actual, physical, evidence. Concluding God is not the same as proving God.