Should we try to justify our faith through rationality, like with philosophical arguments...

Should we try to justify our faith through rationality, like with philosophical arguments, or attempting to prove the historicity of the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus?

Or should the justification for faith be personal experience of God through prayer and worship?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ
youtube.com/watch?v=6PbYoQw8M48
youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
youtube.com/watch?v=UAp6KUwEBZs
youtube.com/watch?v=fIrZZHC27QQ
youtube.com/watch?v=t8Zb5AhU0eI
youtube.com/watch?v=Ljv4eKEHYD4
youtube.com/watch?v=U-XqAHZiDRo
youtube.com/watch?v=5ZsZLDWWZMs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

ALLAHU AKBAR

PRAISE KEK

Let me guess: William Lane Craig?

Many atheists accept the historical existence of jesus. I would be very interested to see proofs of the "empty tomb," his miracles, or other examples of his divinity. The problem with the historical record of jesus is that much of it is dependent on hearsay.

Ones personal relationship with God is inherently subjective and can never be adequately communicated to another (I imagine)

Go ahead, brainwash me with your jesus. I honestly welcome it.

both

Your faith is based on a fucking lie.Deal with it.

There are no invisible sky wizards.or Zombies. It's all a big scam to get money.

Unfortunately, a miracle is the least likely event to occur as an explanation for something that someone claims is a historical fact.

We don't have any historical evidence for anything about Jesus outside of the NT. However, if historians tried to piece together some idea of the historical Jesus, miracles would never be the most likely explanation for the things that had to be explained.

OP was referring to arguments made by Dr. William Lane Craig, who attempts to provide historical evidence for just that, the resurrection.

youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ

No Christian should try to brainwash anyone, so there's a debate which adequately provides both sides of the argument.

I don't agree that one's personal relationship to God cannot be adequately communicated to another. For the most part this is true, but with the exception of those who have a common faith. Christians seem to be able to understand the personal connection with God in other Christians just fine, or even with Muslims to a lesser extent. What you say really only applies to communication between theists and atheists.

No theist characterizes their beliefs in this way. Your strawman is embarrassing. Furthermore, it's stated positively, leaving it up to you to disprove sky wizards and zombies, and with the addition of a claim accusing all religions of being money schemes, despite the tremendous evidence to the contrary.

For example: when Christianity was formed at the start of the common era, it's teachings and effects on its believers were in direct opposition to the power structures at the time, which is precisely why Jesus was persecuted. He taught that we should abandon material wealth and the authority of the pharisees and place love for one another at the peak of our priorities. How does this help anyone to get rich?