Evidence other than hearsay

[Gumph]

Because you are trusting people for information on anything.
Turn it around and prove that there is no God.
What evidence do you have for there not being a God?
How do you know that the scientific evidence that the universe has a begining is true?
ditto everything you know.

Here is another challenge for you.
If you've read the gospels you will know that the disciples were a mixed bunch and that they weren't very brave.
What changed them from people who ran away from the authorities to people who challenged the authorities?

I may initially trust people on nothing more than gut feel or a lack of a decent alternative, but once I have feedback I can gain experience and decide whether to continue trusting or not.

I do have to be discerning in who I trust though, and being expected to trust that dozens of writers wrote a perfect compilation of stories, is well...tough.

How can you ask of me the impossible? Guide me in how I could show there is no Allah or Buddah or whoever. I have no idea as to whether the scientific evidence of the beginning is true or not. As to other things, I use the feedback. I press the switch - the light comes on. I go to work - I get paid. But I have to beware of charlatans. Just today I have around 9 emails asking me to confirm me email log in details - I suspect that this is phishing. I don't think I should trust these people.

There are many factors that could cause there change in heart, or it may not have happened. I simply don't know unless I trust imperfect men.

 

[Gumph]

I was born and raised Christian, baptized at age 10, and have spent quite a few years working professionally in and for the Church--Catholics, Methodists, Christian Church-Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Baptists, charismatics, and an ecumenical group. And partly out of curiosity and partly just to see if it could be done, I spent something over a decade trying to build a case against Christianity. I studied and researched every aspect including taking seminary courses. And I studied the history and beliefs of pretty much all the world's great religions.

I found truth in all religions--all of them get at least something right. And all of them I think get at least something wrong. Religion after all is nothing more than the rituals and rules we engage in our attempt to honor, respect, obey a god or gods or perhaps because they just feel right to us and/or are good for us.

But once I mentally stripped away all the rituals, rules, laws, dogma, doctrine, history, etc. I was left with one reality: a relationship with God/Christ that I could neither explain away nor deny. And that is why I am Christian today.

And no. You might be persuaded that something exists in the faces, countenance, and behavior of believers. But nobody can offer you any proof other than God himself. But I believe all who want it, who ask for it, will know God. Present yourself to the Christ, to God as the imperfect being that we all are. Put no rules or restrictions or time frame or preconceived notions of how it has to happen on it, but ask Him to make you His own. And then, in God's time and in God's way, you will know. And you will be blessed for the knowing.

Thank you. I am glad it turned out well for you. I will wait.

 

[Gumph]

As both authors I cited, they examined the evidence for themselves. AKA they cross examined the record left by Jesus and His Apostles. They both started out by looking at the reliability of the manuscript records. I gave you plenty of sources to examine the manuscript record of the NT and OT. I would start with the NT.

They can't examine the evidence. There is none, other than the testimony of people making claims. They may have found that acceptable evidence. I cannot bring myself to believe everything that they wrote or that was written for them. I know man too well. In my opinion it is essential to find another source for the existence of God, as the stories of men cannot ever be fully believed - no matter their intentions.

Christ did die for us and rose from the dead. I would pursue first why that is the central belief of Christians and why God would do such for us.

I must admit this one has befuddled me for many years, but perhaps we can discuss this in another thread later.

 

[Gumph]

This is the exploring Christianity forum so don’t be surprised we are discussing only Christianity.

I don't expect you to discuss anything else but Christianity here, but when you lay down an expectation of what must be invested to accept Christianity, then the time and effort to do so should be extrapolated to include other belief systems - unless you can advise why only Christianity should be researched.

If you don’t want to trust 2000 years of scholarship then I guess you will at least have to examine the reliability of the historical texts themselves.

Well, if I the length of scholarship is the deciding factor, I should rather turn to Judaism or Hinduism, should I not?

As I tell my sons...If you don’t put in the work seeking the answers to your questions then you will never know.

Fair enough but the work load has to be reasonable. You are expecting me to spend decades doing research. I will be an old man before I might find any truth. Surely that would never be the intention of God?

 

[Gumph]

Why do you think God wanted the extraordinary events to be recorded and confirmed by eyewitnesses?

This is perhaps the crux of the matter for me. The only reason I can think of for using this tactic is if the events were intended for those specific persons only. Surely he would be aware that human messengers would not have the capability to accurately transfer the knowledge to others?

 

[Gumph]

Read his book. He explains the investigative approach cold case detectives use.

If you don’t start somewhere then as the Apostle Paul said:

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7)

I may one day, thank you. For now however my search must first be for an alternative mechanism rather than relying on less than perfect humans - be they the witnesses, the scribes or the investigators.

 

[Gumph]

Unless you can show, beyond your own personal biases, why there is good reason not to trust what Christians offer as an apologetic for their faith, I don't see that you have good grounds to reject it.

I use the same reasoning for why I will ignore that recent email from Joshua in Nigeria who says I have just won the Vodaphone lottery or why I will be skeptical about the insurance salesman who insists that I need to take out a second life insurance policy. I have a very good reason not to trust what Christians offer - they are humans. And I believe that the bible itself labels us as sinners. To me that is very good grounds, not necessarily to reject it, but certainly to say - come on guys I need a bit more than your personal assurance.

It is an impossible task to convince someone according to their subjective demands for "proof." In my experience, the end result, no matter what evidence is given, is always, "I'm not convinced." Well, how convinced a person is about a body of argument and evidence is irrelevant to whether or not it succeeds as such. There are objective standards to which arguments and evidence ought to be held and assessed, not mere subjective preference.

Not at all. I am totally convinced that a sharp knife will cut my skin, I have the scars to prove it. Judges are totally convinced every day of criminal actions and send people to prison. Indeed our individual requirements may differ and some may require more evidence than others, but surely God can cater for that?

Which objective standards do you suggest I use?

A body of evidence that is unconvincing to the majority of humans may be irrelevant as to whether it is true or not, but if it is true the evidence needs to be improved so that this is no longer the case. As it stands we have around 4 of the 12 jury members on the Christian side. Something needs to be done.

 

[Gumph]

And this awesome designer left us a record of what He did, and what He requires of us. The Bible.
As far as alternative evidence, nothing that I know of, although I haven't looked very hard.
I chose to believe and I am amazed at how wonderful God is.

Thank you. That does seem to be a good summary of many of the answers here, i.e: There is only the bible. My human frailty concern remains though.

Try this, kneel down and speak thus,
God, if you exist, please make yourself known to me.
If you have a son Jesus, please help me believe and understand.
If you pray that with a sincere desire to know, He will answer.

Thank you again. At least you have given me and any readers a practical explanation on what needs to be done. I am a little surprised that we must follow the above ritual when it should be clear from this thread alone that I have a strong desire to know. Anyways its not my call I suppose.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Its the "testimonies" I have an issue with. I have no reason to believe them. I really would prefer another option.

Which pertain s to my prior point. If you want convincing proof, you will never get it unless at some point you take steps of faith based upon some degree of evidential warrant. The disciples of Christ did not start to follow Him with based on certitude, but with enough confidence to investigate, and which led to more warrant for faith.

You do not have to have certitude that a certain medicine will work for you in order to try it, and if you do not then you will never know. You do not have certitude that the women you intend to marry warrants that step of faith, but you have some degree of evidential warrant, and hopefully you find that you were right.

And as for born again Christians, for thousands of years converts of Biblical repentant faith have realized profound unexpected changes in heart and life, which correspond to claims of the object of their faith, and are contingent upon obedient faith. And which provides more warrant for deeper faith, which we all need to grow in.

 

[aiki]

I have a very good reason not to trust what Christians offer - they are humans.

And you think Christians are on par with the Nigerian lottery winner or the slippery insurance salesman? Why is that? It sounds also like you're suggesting lying is a default human setting. If so, how far does this view extend? Does it include yourself?

And I believe that the bible itself labels us as sinners.

Well, even sinners are capable of communicating truth. Is the sinner who says 2+2=4 telling a lie? Is it a lie when Joe the sinner gets awakened from a dead sleep in the middle of the night and he tells you that he's annoyed that he's been awakened? When little Bobby the sinner pulls a fish out of the water with his fishing pole and he exclaims, "I've caught a fish!" is he declaring a falsehood?

To me that is very good grounds, not necessarily to reject it, but certainly to say - come on guys I need a bit more than your personal assurance.

You doubt the Bible when it says we are all sinners? Really? Have you never uttered a falsehood? Have you never stolen anything? Have you never hated anyone or looked upon another person with lust? If you have, then, as far as the God revealed in the Bible is concerned, you're a sinner.

Maybe, though, you don't believe that the evil men do is actually evil. Is this where you're coming from?

Not at all. I am totally convinced that a sharp knife will cut my skin, I have the scars to prove it.

But another person may come along and say, "I don't believe it. I don't believe that scar is from cutting yourself with a knife. You're a human just like those rotten Nigerian con artists, or lousy insurance salesman!"

Judges are totally convinced every day of criminal actions and send people to prison.

But the mother of a convicted criminal may refuse to believe her son is as bad as the court has determined he is, no matter the evidence against him. Sometimes, people have a deep bias that bars them from acknowledging the truth.

Indeed our individual requirements may differ and some may require more evidence than others, but surely God can cater for that?

Why should He? Why should He have to jump through every individual's hoops of proof? He's God: We jump through His hoops. Though this is true, He has provided sufficient reason to believe. It may not be all that everyone wants, but it is sufficient.

Which objective standards do you suggest I use?

Well, how about those used by philosophers, scientists, and courts of law?

A body of evidence that is unconvincing to the majority of humans may be irrelevant as to whether it is true or not, but if it is true the evidence needs to be improved so that this is no longer the case.

There is more at play in convincing people of the truth than just the quality of the evidence that it is true. The Bible indicates, for instance, that people reject the truth of God revealed in the Bible, not because it's poorly supported, but because the truth condemns them. For many, it is more important not to feel condemned and not to have to admit fault than to acknowledge the truth. How often I've seen people refuse to admit they are in the wrong when it is obvious they are! Other people reject the truth, not because the evidence for it is insufficient, but because the truth is inconvenient or interferes with their self-gratification. This is the case for the drug addict, or alcoholic, or addicted smoker. There is, then, often more to why people deny the truth than the absence of better evidence for it.

As it stands we have around 4 of the 12 jury members on the Christian side. Something needs to be done.

What jury is that, exactly?

God is doing just what He wishes to no matter the skepticism people have toward Him. He's not diminished in the least by the unwillingness of people to acknowledge Him and live in obedience to Him. His reaching down to us and offering us fellowship with Himself is an entirely one-sided thing: All the benefit is on our side, not His. He doesn't need us a bit; but we desperately need Him - though many admit this far too late.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't follow. This is not what I am saying. In our analogy of a criminal court, the eye witnesses appear before the jury. They can be cross examined and their back grounds checked. This gives their testimony more credibility and so allows a reasonable decision to be made. Christianity does not allow this check, rather I am expected to take the word of these eye witnesses, without being able to check their character, their history or to verify their ability to have been a decent eye witness. This just seems unreasonable to me and I doubt courts are convicting people on just this.

Dude other than Christ all the eyewitnesses are dead...well beyond worm food now. But we do have their testimony and we base such on the reliability of the manuscript record and their stated accounts.

You can cross examine that all you want from the comfort of your abode.

I'm curious....do you believe the campaigns of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar we have in history are accurate?

 

[redleghunter]

Fair enough but the work load has to be reasonable. You are expecting me to spend decades doing research. I will be an old man before I might find any truth. Surely that would never be the intention of God?

It does not take that long. Lee Strobel spend like less than a year. Maybe if you are looking for the "Readers Digest" version or Cliff notes you should just break down and buy or download his book.

 

[redleghunter]

This is perhaps the crux of the matter for me. The only reason I can think of for using this tactic is if the events were intended for those specific persons only. Surely he would be aware that human messengers would not have the capability to accurately transfer the knowledge to others?

But human communicators did send the message both by word and the written. We call them Apostles.

 

[EJ M]

Thank you. That does seem to be a good summary of many of the answers here, i.e: There is only the bible. My human frailty concern remains though.



Thank you again. At least you have given me and any readers a practical explanation on what needs to be done. I am a little surprised that we must follow the above ritual when it should be clear from this thread alone that I have a strong desire to know. Anyways its not my call I suppose.

You are most welcome.
Most people make the mistake of judging God by what people do, i.e. if there is a God why does He allow........?
However in the interest of truly giving you an answer;
Ponder two possibilities, what do you have to lose if you chose to believe the Bible is true? (Christians are the happiest people group on earth according to a study)
What do you have to lose if you chose not to believe and the Bible is true?
In his book, Civilizations, the historian Naill Ferguson tells this story;
An official of the the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences tasked with discovering why China led the west until the 18th century and then fell behind, came to the following conclusion:
‘One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.’
And my friend Gumph, remember that this team of Social Scientists were likely atheists. Christians are not highly regarded in communist China and not much in academia.
Maybe food for thought.
I have a solution that might interest you if you PM me.

 

[Steve Petersen]

In my research into Christianity, I have been presented by much evidence that has been acceptable to the persons providing it to me.

I was wondering if there is anything I could look into that does not rely on me having to believe in or trust the words of someone else. Is there perhaps something that I could experience personally or any other suggestions?

How would an experience prove truth?

 

[Tolworth John]

There are many factors that could cause there change in heart, or it may not have happened. I simply don't know unless I trust imperfect men.

You already trust imperfect men to supply electricity etc
You can read and form judgements about what is written. Experts have to submit their work to the review of their peers and face the critism of peers who hold opposing views.

This process exposes weakness in arguments and theories.
If you don't want to read listen to the debates of william lane craig at reasonablefaith web site.

Remember the default setting for humanity is a belief in God. So you either seek for confirmation or evidence to refute it.

May I suggest checking the explorechristianity web site to find a course in your area. It will give you the oppertunity to meet and talk about Christianity and to form a judgement of those running the course.

 

[Gumph]

Which pertain s to my prior point. If you want convincing proof, you will never get it unless at some point you take steps of faith based upon some degree of evidential warrant. The disciples of Christ did not start to follow Him with based on certitude, but with enough confidence to investigate, and which led to more warrant for faith.

You do not have to have certitude that a certain medicine will work for you in order to try it, and if you do not then you will never know. You do not have certitude that the women you intend to marry warrants that step of faith, but you have some degree of evidential warrant, and hopefully you find that you were right.

And as for born again Christians, for thousands of years converts of Biblical repentant faith have realized profound unexpected changes in heart and life, which correspond to claims of the object of their faith, and are contingent upon obedient faith. And which provides more warrant for deeper faith, which we all need to grow in.

Thank you for your views. You have explained nicely what others seem to have said, so it seems a common view.

I personally still remain uncomfortable with this line of thought:

1. With the medicine, I get feedback if it works. I have yet to have feedback from God despite being a believer as a youngster and despite my recent searches.
2. With marriage (I liked this analogy - its a good one), I get responses, such as intimacy or acts of love or words of love. I can witness other marriages in action. A relationship with God, I can only witness one side, and I never get to see and responses.

 

[chilehed]

I am unable to study Gods Word without having to rely on others telling the truth. There is too much intentional lying and unintentional errors in every other aspect of our lives for me to accept second hand information without being able to personally verify it.

That's why Jesus established his Church with a teaching authority, and promised to prevent it from teaching false doctrine.

I daresay that 99 percent of what you believe, you believe because you rely on others telling the truth without being able to personally verify it.

 

[chilehed]

I am unable to study Gods Word without having to rely on others telling the truth. There is too much intentional lying and unintentional errors in every other aspect of our lives for me to accept second hand information without being able to personally verify it.

That's why Jesus established his Church with a teaching authority, and promised to prevent it from teaching false doctrine.

I daresay that 99 percent of what you believe, you believe because you rely on others telling the truth without being able to personally verify it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That's why Jesus established his Church with a teaching authority, and promised to prevent it from teaching false doctrine.

I daresay that 99 percent of what you believe, you believe because you rely on others telling the truth without being able to personally verify it.

Which church are you referring to? Roman Catholic, Orthodox?