No one actually saw Jesus rise from the dead. Someone just said he did.

But that's the point of faith, is believing without proof

Believing something without good evidence isn't smart

Like I said, the point of faith is believing without evidence. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are some of the greatest minds who every live, and they have faith in god. Don't tell me I'm stupid for believing something which I think is correct. Look I'm not a denier of science, I just think it's really possible that something created our universe, and I choose to believe it's God.

"the point of faith is believing without evidence"

Is faith a reliable path to truth?

"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are some of the greatest minds who every live, and they have faith in god"

Newton believed in god but he also believed in alchemy and other wrong ideas. Einstein didn't believe in the god of the Bible at all. And even if both of them believed in the God of the Bible that has nothing to do with whether or not God exists

"Don't tell me I'm stupid for believing something which I think is correct"

I never said you were stupid

"I just think it's really possible that something created our universe, and I choose to believe it's God"

But even you admit you have no evidence to reach that conclusion. Also, people don't choose their beliefs. Either you're convinced of something or you're not. It's not a choice.

It completely is a choice. I literally chose. There is no evidence, sure, but there is likewise no evidence against. "The god particle" is one I hear a lot. They think it disproves god, when in reality, it doesn't

Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, true, but while that specific practice was condemned by the church, modern scientific practices actually have roots in the Catholic and Presbyterian churches, who thought science was like theology, a study of God and his things

I know there's no proof, I'll admit it. But I honestly don't need proof to believe in something

"It completely is a choice. I literally chose."

How do you choose to be convinced of something?

"There is no evidence, sure, but there is likewise no evidence against"

There is evidence against god existing. But even if there wasn't, you shouldn't believe something is true just because it hasn't been proven false. That's flawed thinking.

""The god particle" is one I hear a lot. They think it disproves god, when in reality, it doesn't"

The term "god particle" is a slang term. It's not referring to an actual god. And who says it disproves god?

"modern scientific practices actually have roots in the Catholic and Presbyterian churches, who thought science was like theology, a study of God and his things"

That doesn't mean god exists. Muslim scholars have made many advancements in science and medicine throughout history. Does that mean Islam is true?

"I know there's no proof, I'll admit it. But I honestly don't need proof to believe in something"

Maybe not proof, but you should at least have good evidence. Believing things without good evidence is a sure way to fall for lies or bad information. Do you just believe whatever anyone tells you?

No, of course I don't believe everything everyone tells me. I think for myself. I just choose to believe in god, also yes, Islam can be true. We worship the same god. I'm just saying that science as we know it was started by religious people who wanted to illuminate God's creation

As I've said before in previous comments, not to you, but regardless, the Hebrew god (the one I chose to follow for ethical, moral, and spiritual reasons) said "don't have any gods before me." I. Essence, what that means is he doesn't deny the existence of other God, but just explains he's the first. Anyway, I think all religions have a god, and have truth to their beliefs. Islam is another outlet, a way to believe the same god. So yes, it could be true. The Arabs invented the modern numerical system, for Pete's sake! What an advancement, eh?

When you say moral reasons, what do you mean? Some of the rules in the Bible are good, but many others are very bad.

Faith isn't a sure way to truth, but if you were to meet God, you could possibly ask him the truth, because humans are incapable of try understanding the universe, for God exists outside of this universe as well as in it, only a being of that scale could provide exact truth

"if you were to meet God, you could possibly ask him the truth"

If god exists, he hasn't shown himself to me so I have no way of knowing that he exists.

"because humans are incapable of try understanding the universe"

Humans can understand a lot about the universe

"for God exists outside of this universe as well as in it, only a being of that scale could provide exact truth"

How did you come to that conclusion?

Theology. If you read the Bible you would be able to see that god is omnipresent, correct? But he is outside of linear time, so he's outside of this universe, which functions in linear time.

Look it's fine with me if you don't believe, I couldn't care less

Humans can understand a lot about the universe
However, if you looked at the universe and saw the scale of it, and realized we aren't even a spec on the visible universe, we are insignificant. To believe that we know everything is false. There is some aspects of it that we just can't know, one being the existence of God. It certainly feels like there has to be an architect. Why would God, out of the whole universe, pick us to worship him? A good question, no doubt.

The fermi paradox explains that there is other life in the universe, but we can't have any evidence, because they're light-years away, and as such, we have no proof of other life. Sure you could say that people have seen UFOs, but to a religious point, you could also say people have seen god, but of course, there us no proof. As a man of science, I assume you'd agree that there is extraterrestrial life, correct? Well then, if people see UFOs, claim to see them, and stuff like that, then why is it wrong when people say they had a miracle?

Don't take me the wrong way, I disagree with what a lot of the church has to say, and I believe in evolution, science, as well as theology

"There is some aspects of it that we just can't know, one being the existence of God"

If there's a God who wants humans to know that he exists, then that shouldn't be a mystery

"It certainly feels like there has to be an architect"

I understand that many people look at nature and think there has to be a being who designed it, but they're also ignoring all of the bad things that are problematic

"Why would God, out of the whole universe, pick us to worship him? A good question, no doubt"

What if it's the other way around? What if humans just invented a god so they wouldn't feel so small and insignificant in the universe?

"As a man of science, I assume you'd agree that there is extraterrestrial life, correct?"

I can't say for sure one way or the other, but I think it is very likely

"Well then, if people see UFOs, claim to see them, and stuff like that, then why is it wrong when people say they had a miracle?"

It depends on what you mean by wrong. If somebody says they had an experience, then maybe they had an experience, but if they say the experience was caused by UFOs or a miracle or something like that, and they can't provide any evidence, why should anybody believe them? And if they can't provide any evidence, how do they know that's what caused it?

"I disagree with what a lot of the church has to say, and I believe in evolution, science, as well as theology"

It's good that you understand evolution and science, and I would encourage you to keep studying science. Science can't answer every question, but it gets us a lot closer to answering questions than theology does

Also, he came back to them. In 3 days. 12 people saw it, and the gospel writers recorded it. What is Easter about then?

Well, the gospels are wildly inconsistent on the details of the resurrection of Christ. They don't agree as to who went to the tomb, how many angels were there, and whether or not the angel(s) were inside or outside of the tomb.

Paul said Jesus first appeared to Cephas and another unnamed disciple. Mathew says it was Mary Magdaline and "the other mary" (who ever that is) and then the 11 disciples. Luke says it was a follower named Cleopas and some other guy.

Are Cephas and Cleopas the same guy or 2 different people? If that's teh same dude, why are the names so very different? And who was that 2nd person?

In the New Testiment, Mark doesn't mention anyone seeing Jesus after his death. But in the apocrypha Long Ending, Jesus appears to Mary Magdaline and tells her to tell the disciples.

In Acts, Christ stuck around for 40 days talking to the disciples. None of the other gospels talk about this.

Paul says that Jesus appeared to 500 other people.

In John, Jesus is appearing to disciples in Galilee and Jerusalem. Then stops.

Luke says Jesus appeared, gave the great commision, and ascended into heaven.

Since this is the foundational moment in the Christian religion, you'd think they'd be able to agree on who saw Jesus, in what order, and all of their names. And how to spell them. And how long he stuck around after the resurection.

If you want to believe in the resurrection of Christ, that's fine. No one cares. But don't present it as a historical fact when your own religious text can't agree on what happened, who saw it, and how long it went on.

I think cephas and cleopas are the same guy, but possibly different translations of the name? Who's to say. Yeah the Bible is inconsistent and It often contradicts other stuff, but I think Jesus to be the Messiah, because although the details of his resurrection are skewed, the story is that a bunch of people saw him, 12 or 500, people would've said he came back. Idk, I will give you credit, I didn't even think of the inconsistencies