@mariosmask@lostinganglia What evidence remakes an all-good God less likely?
If your answer is "widespread suffering", then I will say widespread goodness and beauty works in the other direction.
Classical theism's Uncaused Cause is necessarily maximally great. Can you propose another framework to fit?
@Atomsmade I dont think you have thought this through. If there is no God, and on materialism, there is no free will. We are all acting according to neuro-chemical impulses in brain chemistry, as part of a causal chain based on blind unguided forces.
@SuperColossal71@lostinganglia I'm surprised you disagree. Why is it unreasonable to think a good God would want to reveal Himself to any extent? Even atheists seem to agree, when they use the "divine hiddenness" argument.
@mariosmask@lostinganglia I start with the universe and see it requires a cause which is not contingent on time, space or matter. From design and transcendent truth in the universe I see it has a Mind. Classical theism's Perfect Being is the best fit, not a baseless presupposition.
@OutofContext025@lostinganglia Not at all. The Quran is full of scientific blunders as well, like that the moon was split in 2 or that the sun sets in a muddy spring. Your examples are based on vague wording, retroactive fitting and selective reading.
@SemixOmope@lostinganglia Where is the contradiction? I have repeatedly said that it is not based on size but on evidence.
I only said I thought it's reasonable to start by looking at the big religions. There are thousands of religions, it's not practical to start with the obscure ones.
@lostinganglia There's a lot more, so much more I can say, but I'm trying to keep it brief. The more I investigate, the greater I see the lead Christianity has on Islam. It's not even remotely close.
@lostinganglia I'll repeat, in those categories. Christ: enemies confirm his reputation of miracles. Mohammed: confirms he does not perform miracles.
Historical claims: Christ: enemies confirm known historical fact of crucifixion. Mohammed: denies known historical fact of crucifixion.
@lostinganglia@JabranALee I cringe at both flat earthers, and people who try to claim that all religions are equally lacking in evidence. Both these groups are evidence deniers.
@lostinganglia Latest research is in favor of it being authentic. The evidence is extremely compelling that it fits with Josephus'own style and use of words and vocabulary. Forgery is incredibly unlikely.
@lostinganglia Can you yet agree that there is a qualitative difference between the evidence for Christianity and for Islam?
Christianity is ahead in: historical corroboration of core claims, morality of the founder, sociological and moral impact on society, internal consistency of claims...
@lostinganglia Let me try another way: If I tell you I bought cigarettes at the shop, or that I bought cigarettes on Jupiter...
Can you not see how one story is more credible than another?
The story that is grounded accurately in the real world is at least certainly more credible, no?
@lostinganglia Yes I agree it is not proof of everything they claim, but it certainly raises their reliability and credibility.
Historical fiction with such a high level of detail did not exist in the ancient world. Gospels read like eyewitness testimony and historical investigation.
@lostinganglia But you're wrong. Christianity is built on corroborated historical data (eg the crucifixion) and OT doctrine. Islam is a denial of historical data (denies crucifixion) and a warping of OT doctrine (gets names persons and events embarrassingly wrong when referring to the OT).