Paarsurrey says: Referring to your last line “As such, I’ll be visiting the New Testament in the near future.”
Your argument is good if we adhere to what Jesus believed in; but NT does not present Jesus’ teachings and what he believed in; it presents Trinity of Paul and the Church that Jesus never believed in.
Thus far, we’ve seen several things that either cannot be explained by materialism or positively contradict it. Contingent objects, the beginning of the universe, moral truth, the foundations of science, and conscious thought are among them.
Assuming one has followed the argument this far, we’re left with a timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, moral, and personal being. At least, this concept explains those things on the table which need explanation. This, I would argue, simply follows from the facts of reality as we experience it.
This much has been said, meaning that we have reached a being which, most would agree, could reasonably be called God. Setting aside the objections that might be made up until this point, we have yet to address an oft-heard objection:
But which God is it?
Many have pointed out, rightly, that simply stopping with the conclusion of “God” isn’t enough. We need a more specific…
View original post 344 more words
paarsurrey 
Leave a Reply