Is Christianity worth serious consideration

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLoJ, can you please provide a translation of scripture that is comprehensible to people other than you?

Thank you.

I generally read and translate the Bible right from the greek/hebrew texts and it reads fine for me.

Anyway, I am pretty much through here on this thread and thanks for allowing me to share my views even though I was probably just "spitting into the wind". Peace.

LLOJ unsubscribes.....

Ezekiel 37:10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army. 11 Then He said to me, "Son of adam, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!'

Luke 2:34 And blesses them, Simon, and said toward Mariam, the mother of Him, "behold!, this-one is set/lying for the Falling and Ressurection/ana-stasin <386> in many to-the Israel, and into a Sign spoken against"-- [Ezekiel 37 "valley of bones]

 

[Radagast]

Well, I have reasons for believing God exists -- the existence of the universe, personal experience, etc. -- but perhaps not what you would consider proof.

So you also admit that it is an unsubstantiated claim.

A claim that I can't 100% prove to you, yes.

Well, there are many other things I accept without 100% proof -- the existence of the world around me, the validity of the scientific method, the soundness of mathematics. Do you accept those things? Why?

Yes, I do accept those things because they are not dependent on an unsubstantiated claim. The question remains, how is it reasonable to hold beliefs that are dependent on an unsubstantiated claim?

But they are equally dependent on "unsubstantiated claims." Can you prove to me that the universe exists (that solipsism is wrong)?

Can you prove to me that the scientific method is valid? No, you can only point to the past and say that it seems to work very well so far.

Can you prove to me that mathematics is sound? No, Gödel's theorem says you can't. You can point to the successes of mathematics and say you have a great deal of confidence, but that's all.

So you already take some things with a degree of faith...

 

[ebia]

The resurrection is also an unsubstantiated claim.

One can make an historical argument in favour of the resurrection. It requires a lot of groundwork (about 1800 pages of N.T. Wright's COQG series) and may not be sufficient to overcome many people's assumption of naturalism, but such a case can be made. However, that wasn't my point. My point was "God exists" is not the starting point claim of Christianity - the fundamental claim of Christianity is "Christ is risen".

If you disagree then please provide some evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension and that confirms that the resurrection took place.

I've previously outlined in other threads in GA some of the relevant themes, but a serious examination of the case is really outside the scope of what can be done in a thread like this.

Did not your timeless, unknowable deity exist before the supposed resurrection of Jesus? Is not your God supposed to exist right now? Please substantiate the claim that your God exists or acknowledge that it is unsubstantiated.

The resurrection can be supported by historical argument, but that was never the answer to your question. Your question was "Why should I give Christianity serious consideration if...." and my answer is "the reason people give worldviews serious consideration has nothing to do with whether the foundational assumptions can be proven or not, so whether I can prove God exists or not is irrelevent to whether or not someone will give it serious consideration".

It means what I said in the OP: to establish by proof or competent evidence, to verify. You can look up &#8216;substantiate&#8217; in the dictionary if you don&#8217;t believe me. So has the existence of God been verified?

Not on your terms.

This is an ad hominem tu quoque argument that doesn&#8217;t explain how it is worth giving serious consideration to Christian beliefs that are based on an unsubstantiated claim. Please explain how your Christian beliefs are worth giving serious consideration when they are dependent on an unsubstantiated claim.

All worldviews are based on what you call "unsubstantiated claims", yet people, including you, still give some of them consideration. No-one, self-identified rationalists included, adopts or considers a worldview because it is built on proven foundations; people adopt worldviews because they make the most sense of the stories they have heard and experienced. Asking whether a worldview has an "unsubtantiated claim" in its' foundation is a complete red-herring when it comes to considering worldviews.

Though it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, I am curious to know what beliefs I hold that are dependent on an unsubstantiated claim in the same way that your Christian beliefs are dependent on the unsubstantiated claim that your God exists. Please provide some examples.

All worldviews have axioms - inherently unprovable assumptions. I don't know your worldview sufficiently well to identify the specifics of yours. (I'm not at all sure you do either.)


If your question was really "I am not willing to consider any worldview that has an unsubstantiated claim - so can you substantiate Christianity's" then that is the question you should have asked. Of course I would then say that the first clause of that question is demonstrably incorrect since you have adopted a worldview that has an unsubstantiated claim.

But if we are to stick to your original question, you should give Christianity serious consideration if, and only if, it makes more sense of the stories you hear and experience than whatever worldview you currently hold to.

 

[3sigma]

But they are equally dependent on "unsubstantiated claims."

No, they are not equally dependent on an unsubstantiated claim. Christian beliefs are almost entirely dependent on the single unsubstantiated claim that your God exists. Again, if your God doesn’t exist then Jesus was not divine, the son of your God or your God incarnate, your God didn’t create anything, your God doesn’t perform miracles or answer prayers and any stories in the Bible that rely on your God are just make-believe. Almost all Christian beliefs are false if your God doesn’t exist—and there is no sound evidence to suggest that it does.

The belief that the universe exists does not depend on a single unsubstantiated claim. There is sound evidence for its existence right there in front of us at this very moment. Similarly, there is sound evidence that the scientific method is valid and that mathematics produces true results. Neither science nor mathematics depends on a single unsubstantiated claim.

However, there is no sound evidence that your God exists, yet almost all Christian beliefs depend on that single unsubstantiated claim. Please explain how it is reasonable to hold beliefs that almost entirely depend on a single unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Radagast]

No, they are not equally dependent on an unsubstantiated claim. Christian beliefs are almost entirely dependent on the single unsubstantiated claim that your God exists. Again, if your God doesn&#8217;t exist then Jesus was not divine, the son of your God or your God incarnate, your God didn&#8217;t create anything, your God doesn&#8217;t perform miracles or answer prayers and any stories in the Bible that rely on your God are just make-believe. Almost all Christian beliefs are false if your God doesn&#8217;t exist&#8212;and there is no sound evidence to suggest that it does.

The belief that the universe exists does not depend on a single unsubstantiated claim.

Indeed it does... on the claim that what our senses tell us refers to something external and real. A claim you may never have questioned, but a claim ("unsubstantiated" by your criteria) neverthless.

You have reasons for believing that the universe exists, just as I have reasons for believing that God exists.

Similarly, there is sound evidence that the scientific method is valid and that mathematics produces true results. Neither science nor mathematics depends on a single unsubstantiated claim.

Well, mathematics depends on an (unprovable) claim of soundness (since an unsound mathematics would be able to prove anything, even contradictions).

Similarly science depends (depending on your philosophy of science) on the validity of induction, which we only know by induction.

So it seems to me that you may be holding Christian belief to a higher standard than you use for science and mathematics?

 

[3sigma]

Asking whether a worldview has an "unsubtantiated claim" in its' foundation is a complete red-herring when it comes to considering worldviews.

Will you please just explain how it is reasonable to hold beliefs that depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim?

I don't know your worldview sufficiently well to identify the specifics of yours. (I'm not at all sure you do either.)

So you can’t provide any examples of beliefs I hold that depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim. That’s a pity because I was looking forward to identifying and relinquishing such unreasonable beliefs.

 

[ebia]

Will you please just explain how it is reasonable to hold beliefs that depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim?

Ultimately everyone believes stuff that depends on unsubstantiated claims. If you want to call everybody, including yourself, unreasonable for that it doesn't bother me.

So you can’t provide any examples of beliefs I hold that depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim. That’s a pity because I was looking forward to identifying and relinquishing such unreasonable beliefs.

I'll leave identifiying them for you to do, but relinquishing all of them might be hard without giving up sense-making altogether.

 

[3sigma]

You have reasons for believing that the universe exists, just as I have reasons for believing that God exists.

Are you telling me that you have evidence for the existence of your God that is equal to my evidence that the things around me exist? Have you physically touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted your God the way I have used my physical senses to confirm the existence of my surroundings?

Well, mathematics depends on an (unprovable) claim of soundness (since an unsound mathematics would be able to prove anything, even contradictions).

Similarly science depends (depending on your philosophy of science) on the validity of induction, which we only know by induction.

So it seems to me that you're holding Christian belief to a higher standard than you use for science and mathematics.

I’m sorry, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that mathematics depends almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim, that there is absolutely no sound evidence supporting that claim and that claim can never be tested? Similarly, are you saying that science depends almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim, that there is absolutely no sound evidence supporting that claim and that claim can never be tested? Is that what you are saying? You would have to be saying that to be able to compare mathematics and science to Christian beliefs and claim that they are equal.

 

[ebia]

Are you telling me that you have evidence for the existence of your God that is equal to my evidence that the things around me exist? Have you physically touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted your God the way I have used my physical senses to confirm the existence of my surroundings?

Have you physically touched love, beauty, justice, tradgedy, vocation...? By what authority or basis do you prioritise some sorts of experiencing and knowing to the exclusion of others?

I’m sorry, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that mathematics depends almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim,

Mathematics depends on a whole heap of acknowledged and unacknowledged unsubstantiated claims - some of them are called axioms. Some are just taken for granted

Similar for science.

Not that either mathematics nor science are intrinsically worldviews.

 

[Radagast]

Are you telling me that you have evidence for the existence of your God that is equal to my evidence that the things around me exist? Have you physically touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted your God the way I have used my physical senses to confirm the existence of my surroundings?

Yes, I have sensed the presence of God, and that sensation is "physical" in that it produces changes in my brain just as real as when I sense a flower or a symphony.

I&#8217;m sorry, perhaps I&#8217;m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that mathematics depends almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim, that there is absolutely no sound evidence supporting that claim and that claim can never be tested?

Indeed I am (and I'm a professional mathematician). Mathematics depends entirely on a single claim (consistency) which can never be fully proven (see here). So why do I continue as a professional mathematician? Because mathematics has never let me down, and because my brother and sister mathematicians (including those of the past) have found it works for them too. That evidence is good enough for me, even though it may not be enough to convince a hard-nosed sceptic (one with a fundamental dislike of mathematics). Nobody who has never experienced mathematics can truly understand how strong the evidence is.

In the same way, God has never let me down, and my brother and sister Christians (including those of the past) accept God too. That evidence is good enough for me, even though it may not be enough to convince a hard-nosed sceptic (one with a fundamental dislike of Christianity). Nobody who has never experienced God can truly understand how strong the evidence is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain how it is reasonable to believe uncorroborated hearsay assertions.

Because these uncorroborated hearsay assertions launched an icon that has run throughout history from even before it was established by infallible proofs until today (and beyond):

So does space ...

... and time:

BC / AD
​

 

[3sigma]

Have you physically touched love, beauty, justice, tradgedy, vocation?

Hmmm… No, I must admit I haven’t physically touched any of those because they are emotions and feelings. They only exist within people’s minds. Are you saying that your God only exists within people’s minds? In which case, it couldn’t have created anything, Jesus isn’t its son, it can’t answer prayers or perform miracles and all the stories about it in the Bible are just make-believe.

Mathematics depends on a whole heap of acknowledged and unacknowledged unsubstantiated claims - some of them are called axioms. Some are just taken for granted

Similar for science.

So then they don’t depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim with absolutely no sound evidence to support it. In this respect, science and mathematics are not like Christian beliefs at all.

Again I ask, could you please explain how it is reasonable to hold beliefs that depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim that has absolutely no evidence to support it?

 

[3sigma]

Yes, I have sensed the presence of God, and that sensation is "physical" in that it produces changes in my brain just as real as when I sense a flower or a symphony.

So your answer to my question about whether you have physically touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted your God the way I have used my physical senses to confirm the existence of my surroundings is… No. Instead you place the word “physical” in quotes and use it in a sense that means not physical at all, but in fact ‘mental’. What you are really saying is that you have experienced your God only as an internal feeling and you have absolutely no sound, objective evidence to show that it exists.

Indeed I am (and I'm a professional mathematician). Mathematics depends entirely on a single claim (consistency) which can never be fully proven (see here).

And, like the claim that your God exists, there is absolutely no sound evidence to support the claim that mathematics is consistent? Its consistency has never been observed? Is that what you are saying? Again, you would have to be saying that, if you were honestly comparing Christian beliefs to the belief that mathematics is consistent.

Christian beliefs depend almost entirely on the claim that your God exists, but there is absolutely no sound, objective evidence to support that claim. If you disagree then please provide some sound, objective evidence to support it. If you agree then please explain how it is reasonable to hold beliefs that depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim that has absolutely no sound, objective evidence to support it?

 

[3sigma]

Yes, I have sensed the presence of Shiva…
In the same way, the Titans have never let me down…

Exactly. Thank you SiderealExalt. One could use the same weasel words to excuse belief in any nonsense at all.

 

[ebia]

Hmmm… No, I must admit I haven’t physically touched any of those because they are emotions and feelings.

Are they?

They only exist within people’s minds.

Do they?

You know this how?

So then they don’t depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim with absolutely no sound evidence to support it.

Correct, they depend on several "unsubstantiated claims".... How do you think that is better? You're not making any sense.

 

[Radagast]

So your answer to my question about whether you have physically touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted your God the way I have used my physical senses to confirm the existence of my surroundings is… No. Instead you place the word “physical” in quotes and use it in a sense that means not physical at all, but in fact ‘mental’.

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical." You seem to be assuming your surroundings exist? Whereas in fact, it seems to me, cogito ergo sum is all you can be 100% certain of.

And, like the claim that your God exists, there is absolutely no sound evidence to support the claim that mathematics is consistent? Its consistency has never been observed? Is that what you are saying?

I'm not sure what you mean by "observed." I'm not sure how one "observes" something like that. It certainly hasn't been proven.

... if you were honestly comparing Christian beliefs to the belief that mathematics is consistent.

Christian beliefs depend almost entirely on the claim that your God exists, but there is absolutely no sound, objective evidence to support that claim.

We seem to have reached the stage of (1) impugning my honesty and (2) simply repeating your original post, without seriously responding to any of my comments. I see no reason to continue the discussion.

 

[ebia]

Again I ask, could you please explain how it is reasonable to hold beliefs that depend almost entirely on a single unsubstantiated claim that has absolutely no evidence to support it?

And I'll repeat the same answer I gave before: all worldviews are entirely dependent upon unsubstantiated claims without evidence to support them (and in any case any criterion for assessing such claims would be worldview dependent, producing a circular argument). People adopt worldviews because they make sense of stories shared and experienced and modify or reject them when they fail to make sense of stories shared or experienced.

If you want to call that unreasonable that's fine by me, but that would mean that everyone - you included - is acting unreasonably.

Nothing new has been said in the last few posts, so I guess we are done.

 

[3sigma]

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical." You seem to be assuming your surroundings exist? Whereas in fact, it seems to me, cogito ergo sum is all you can be 100% certain of.

You appear to be retreating into solipsism. Are you telling us that you have no sound, objective evidence whatsoever that your surroundings exist? You would have to be saying that to compare it faithfully to your belief that your God exists.

We seem to have reached the stage of (1) impugning my honesty and (2) simply repeating your original post, without seriously responding to any of my comments. I see no reason to continue the discussion.

I wasn’t meaning to impugn your honesty; I was searching for a word to describe the comparison. I should have said ‘faithfully’.

 

[3sigma]

Are they?

Yes, of course love, beauty, justice, tragedy and vocation are emotions, feelings or value judgments (with the possible exception of justice, but I took it to mean a sense of justice in keeping with the rest of the terms).

Do they?

You know this how?

Yes, of course they exist only within people’s minds. I’m curious, though, do you think that love, for example, has an independent objective existence?

You also failed to answer my question. When you gave these examples of things that have no independent objective existence in response to my question about the physical existence of your God, were you saying that your God doesn’t physically exist and only exists within people’s minds?

If you want to call that unreasonable that's fine by me, but that would mean that everyone - you included - is acting unreasonably.

No, it doesn’t mean that everyone is acting unreasonably. There is a fundamental difference between holding beliefs supported by sound, objective evidence and holding beliefs that are not—a difference that you appear to be ignoring or wishing to conceal. People hold many beliefs about the natural world that are based on sound, objective evidence. However, almost all Christian beliefs depend on the single claim that your God exists, which has zero sound, objective evidence supporting it. Though, at least it appears from this that you agree that holding such unsupported beliefs is unreasonable.

And I'll repeat the same answer I gave before…
…
Nothing new has been said in the last few posts, so I guess we are done.

Well, repeating the same answer you gave before is certainly saying nothing new so I guess you are done.

 

[Radagast]

You appear to be retreating into solipsism. Are you telling us that you have no sound, objective evidence whatsoever that your surroundings exist? You would have to be saying that to compare it faithfully to your belief that your God exists.

Oh, I believe my surroundings exist -- the evidence convinces me. The hypothesis of an external world seems to me to best explain the sense-data my mind receives. But how would you refute, say, Berkeley?

Perhaps we can progress if you explain what you mean by "sound, objective evidence", because it seems to be somewhat of a rubbery criterion. Only by defining that can we discuss whether that kind of evidence exists for Christianity.