An open call for evidence

[ug333]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

 

[musicalpilgrim]

I have been in your position and tussled with auguments with a friend, then I started asking the Lord to make himself real to me, I really wanted to know for certain. It took a while of searching but he did...yes, he made himself so very real to me, and then there are no doubts because I know.

Matthew 11
27 “My Father has entrusted everything to me. No one truly knows the Son except the Father, and no one truly knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

 

[Archie the Preacher]

What Pilgrim said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

Hi ug333,

First, you'll have to qualify what you think 'evidence' is and what would 'count' as evidence, since evidence isn't really self-evident and, if and when we have it, it doesn't necessarily speak for itself. In fact, I think you really need to recognize the latitude which exists in the whole effort any of us has to make in understanding how we determine what constitutes evidence of any kind, as well as that pertaining to God.

Yes, I know that sounds like a deepity, but it isn't. It's a philosophical pretzel that each of us is handed BEFORE we start counting all the evidence we think may be actually available. And that pretzel is one that everyone has a hard time biting into. Some of our problems of faith typically come when we claim to have jaws of logical steel. The thing is, no one does.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[AvgJoe]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

Concerning the evidence we have for God, you know that the Bible is Christianity's holy book, the Word of God. If the Bible is true, then Christianity is true and the God described within it's pages is real, is Who He says He is and can be trusted. Have you looked into the validity of the Bible?

There are many testaments to the validity of the Scriptures. The unity of the Scriptures is one such testament. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, by 40 God chosen men, who lived on multiple continents and they all wrote about the same thing, man's sin and his need for a savior, Jesus Christ. There were no mail delivery trucks, no drop ship planes, no Federal Express, no UPS and no email, yet when all of the writings were put together they present one unified message. The Bible is truly the Word of God.

Following are many other areas that attest to the validity of the Scriptures.

An excellent ebook on the subject: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/idobi.pdf

Proof of Textual Evidence
Old Testament: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
New Testament: Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
More on the Bible: The Bible | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ
Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of Archaeology
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
Biblical Archeology
Archaeological evidence verifying biblical cities | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of Science
Statements Consistent With Paleontology, Astronomy, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology & Geology, that were made 1,000s of years before science discovered them.
Science and the Bible
Scientific Accuracies of the Bible | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Proof of Prophecy (Messanic & dealing with nations)
Messianic Prophecies
Fulfilled Bible Prophecy Dealing With Nations
Prophecy, the Bible and Jesus | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
http://shoreshdavidbrandon.org/pdf/I-Have-A-Friend-Whose-Jewish.pdf (pages 11 & 12 - awesome eBook)
How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

If the Bible is true, then Christianity is true and the God described within it's pages is real, is Who He says He is and can be trusted.

 

[musicalpilgrim]

There are many testaments to the validity of the Scriptures. The unity of the Scriptures is one such testament. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, by 40 God chosen men, who lived on multiple continents and they all wrote about the same thing, man's sin and his need for a savior, Jesus Christ. There were no mail delivery trucks, no drop ship planes, no Federal Express, no UPS and no email, yet when all of the writings were put together they present one unified message. The Bible is truly the Word of God.

I'm impressed, I shall follow the links...

 

[AvgJoe]

I'm impressed, I shall follow the links...

Only to God's glory, I hope they are helpful to your walk.

 

[ug333]

Hi ug333,

First, you'll have to qualify what you think 'evidence' is and what would 'count' as evidence, since evidence isn't really self-evident and, if and when we have it, it doesn't necessarily speak for itself. In fact, I think you really need to recognize the latitude which exists in the whole effort any of us has to make in understanding how we determine what constitutes evidence of any kind, as well as that pertaining to God.

Yes, I know that sounds like a deepity, but it isn't. It's a philosophical pretzel that each of us is handed BEFORE we start counting all the evidence we think may be actually available. And that pretzel is one that everyone has a hard time biting into. Some of our problems of faith typically come when we claim to have jaws of logical steel. The thing is, no one does.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

By no means is the a deepity. I agree with your assessment, all things begin with epistemology.

My approach focuses on the axiom that reality exists. I further assume that my senses provide me a reasonable approximation of reality. From there, I attempt to minimize assumptions when discussing issues of fact, and I think it's possible to do so.

Because I do not assume that my senses are 100% reliable, my experience is not the gold standard of evidence. Repeatable, verifiable experiment is the gold standard.

From this, we can use logic to attempt to model reality. So, in essence, I'm a methodological naturalist so long as we have no demonstrated method of testing the supernatural

 

[ug333]

Concerning the evidence we have for God, you know that the Bible is Christianity's holy book, the Word of God. If the Bible is true, then Christianity is true and the God described within it's pages is real, is Who He says He is and can be trusted. Have you looked into the validity of the Bible?

There are many testaments to the validity of the Scriptures. The unity of the Scriptures is one such testament. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, by 40 God chosen men, who lived on multiple continents and they all wrote about the same thing, man's sin and his need for a savior, Jesus Christ. There were no mail delivery trucks, no drop ship planes, no Federal Express, no UPS and no email, yet when all of the writings were put together they present one unified message. The Bible is truly the Word of God.

Following are many other areas that attest to the validity of the Scriptures.

An excellent ebook on the subject: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/idobi.pdf

Proof of Textual Evidence
Old Testament: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
New Testament: Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
More on the Bible: The Bible | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ
Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of Archaeology
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
Biblical Archeology
Archaeological evidence verifying biblical cities | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of Science
Statements Consistent With Paleontology, Astronomy, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology & Geology, that were made 1,000s of years before science discovered them.
Science and the Bible
Scientific Accuracies of the Bible | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Proof of Prophecy (Messanic & dealing with nations)
Messianic Prophecies
Fulfilled Bible Prophecy Dealing With Nations
Prophecy, the Bible and Jesus | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
http://shoreshdavidbrandon.org/pdf/I-Have-A-Friend-Whose-Jewish.pdf (pages 11 & 12 - awesome eBook)
How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

If the Bible is true, then Christianity is true and the God described within it's pages is real, is Who He says He is and can be trusted.

To me, there is a fatal flaw in this logic. Let's say I were to take a true historical account with many verifiable points and edit it to add something that is supernatural? Would the validity of the rest of the account serve to justify belief in the supernatural claim? For me, it would not.

I proportion my belief of any claim to the evidence provided AND the significance of the claim. If the claim is grand in impact, I require a higher standard of evidence.

Historical documents don't provide me with a sufficient body of evidence to accept the claims of the supernatural. Add in the existence of other books which claim the same qualities, but directly contradict the Bible, and I can't find the Bible as a sound reason for me to accept a God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By no means is the a deepity. I agree with your assessment, all things begin with epistemology.

My approach focuses on the axiom that reality exists. I further assume that my senses provide me a reasonable approximation of reality. From there, I attempt to minimize assumptions when discussing issues of fact, and I think it's possible to do so.

Because I do not assume that my senses are 100% reliable, my experience is not the gold standard of evidence. Repeatable, verifiable experiment is the gold standard.

From this, we can use logic to attempt to model reality. So, in essence, I'm a methodological naturalist so long as we have no demonstrated method of testing the supernatural

Ok, then. Since you're a Methodological Naturalist and not then a Philosophical Naturalist, then would it be safe to say that you think we won't be able to gain much, if any, really verifiable evidence of a religious kind through experimental science? If not, then from whence do you think we could gain evidence that you, yourself, will accept? (See, by applying a little bit of Occam's Razor here, we basically come to a point where we recognize that we can't test something like "prayer" and then draw descriptive or other experimental evidence from that investigation. So, we slice away that avenue of evidence from being a tangible possibility.)

We also might need to shore up what we mean by your agreement that: "all things begin with epistemology." If this is the case, in what way do you think epistemology needs to be defined and applied?

So, what kind of evidence would you like to have, ug333? (I'm asking this as an exploratory invitation, ug33, not as a challenge. I'm sorry if it comes across that way. My intention really is to try to help you here as far a possible.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[John 1720]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

Hi,
Are you just revisting theisic forms, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam. Judiasm, or are you expressly revisiting Christianity?

It will make a difference in how one responds. One response might be covering general evidence for God (Theism) or specifics evidences of the prophesied promised Messiah who was pre-existent with the Father, born of a virgin, lived out a sinless life of love and mercy, performed many miracles, suffered and died for our sins, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of power, and has promised that when the Gospel is successfully preached to all nations that He will return in glory to fulfill the establishment of a new man, not made after the image of fallen Adam but made after the image of Christ Himself. I do not know how deep into Christianity you went or why you rejected both the Christian worldview as well as theism. That would be an important consideration. It's better to have specific targets on which to base a discussion upon.
Before we get too immersed on what empirical points and logic you want to cover it might be better to get a better understanding of your personal background with respect to Christianity and Theism.

One suggestion in order to establish a baseline by which we might better engage in dialog might be to critique the talk and Q&A below.

Another suggestion might be to provide some background on what you generally found problematic in Christianity or more generally Theism.

After this we should be able to cut to the chase.
Sincerely, Pat

 

[AvgJoe]

To me, there is a fatal flaw in this logic. Let's say I were to take a true historical account with many verifiable points and edit it to add something that is supernatural? Would the validity of the rest of the account serve to justify belief in the supernatural claim? For me, it would not.

I proportion my belief of any claim to the evidence provided AND the significance of the claim. If the claim is grand in impact, I require a higher standard of evidence.

Historical documents don't provide me with a sufficient body of evidence to accept the claims of the supernatural. Add in the existence of other books which claim the same qualities, but directly contradict the Bible, and I can't find the Bible as a sound reason for me to accept a God.

No, the Bible will not provide anything, if it's simply dismissed out of hand.

 

[hedrick]

I’ve thought about this myself. There’s pretty obviously evidence. There’s just not unimpeachable evidence. So it’s a judgement call as to whether the evidence is sufficient or not.

The Bible, and the witness of early Christians is evidence. For example, you can make a reasonable argument that the Christian Church couldn’t exist if the Resurrection hadn’t happened. N T Wright has made such an argument, and it looks convincing when you read it. But it depends upon his ideas of what people in 1st Cent Jewish culture would and would not have found believable. I think that’s open for debate. But still, those reports are evidence.

We believe many things, even things about ancient cultures, based on less evidence. But we do also tend to discount reports of the supernatural from cultures that have a less critical approach than ours. That’s why the evidence is open for debate.

But I don’t think Christianity would still exist based solely upon reports from 2000 years ago. There is a continuing stream of people who report religious experience. Again, this is not unimpeachable evidence. There are always alternative explanations. But while not unimpeachable, it is evidence.

Similarly, I think many (hopefully most) Christians find that faith improves their lives. This is also evidence, though it’s open for other explanations as well.

None of these things proves Christianity. But the combination makes many of us think it’s justifiable to be Christians.

 

[hedrick]

I should note that I tend to be skeptical about most apologetics, including the links posted above. A lot of it won't survive critical inquiry. I'd be curious what you think of them after you read them.

Of the classical proofs, I guess I'm not sufficiently philosophically attuned to find them convincing. I do know someone who says he came to believe because of the ontological proof. I find fine-tuning very interesting. But it is not perfect. E.g. infinite universes would make it irrelevant. But that answer may be less plausible than God, depending upon your viewpoint.

 

[crossnote]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

You say you were an ex Christian. If so, that means you were born again, you had your eyes opened to the Truth of Jesus being the Son of God. It also means you had received the new birth, i.e. a new nature.
Am I right so far?
If not, then you only had the Christian religion but not the Life.

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mar 10:15)

 

[Soyeong]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

I think whatever it is you believe, you have to buy something that is difficult to believe. With atheism, you have the miracles of getting something from nothing, getting life from non-life, getting order from chaos, and getting the immaterial from the material. Essentially, atheists use Naturalism of the Gaps reasoning where they don't know what caused it, but know that it wasn't God. While God of the Gaps reasoning is just as problematic, there are ways of concluding that God exists that is reasoning from what we do know rather than what we don't know.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, so if the universe began to exist, then it has a cause. The cause of the universe would have to be immaterial because the cause of matter an energy can't be composed of matter and energy. So we can use logic like this to deduce what sort of attributes that it has, and if we find that the cause of the universe must have the attributes of the God of classical theism, then it is reasonable to refer to this cause as God. As much as it is difficult to believe in the miracle of God creating the universe, it is logical, straightforward, and much easier to believe than the miracle atheism that the universe exploded from nothing uncaused, especially when "nothing" has no properties, so it has no potential for a universe to explode from it.

Likewise, there are many good reasons why Christianity should have died out after the death of its leader, like all of the other Messianic cults had. Any few of those reasons would have been sufficient to prevent it from succeeding, but all of the reasons together makes it next to impossible for Christianity to have succeeded without the resurrection of their leader, so you believe something that is extremely difficult to believe either way regardless of whether or not you believe that Jesus was resurrected. As hard as it is to believe, his resurrection is what best accounts for the facts. I recommend this article:

The Impossible Faith

 

[Soyeong]

By no means is the a deepity. I agree with your assessment, all things begin with epistemology.

My approach focuses on the axiom that reality exists. I further assume that my senses provide me a reasonable approximation of reality. From there, I attempt to minimize assumptions when discussing issues of fact, and I think it's possible to do so.

Because I do not assume that my senses are 100% reliable, my experience is not the gold standard of evidence. Repeatable, verifiable experiment is the gold standard.

From this, we can use logic to attempt to model reality. So, in essence, I'm a methodological naturalist so long as we have no demonstrated method of testing the supernatural

Evidence is essentially information that indicates to us that something is true. If no information indicated to someone that something was true, then they would never form the belief that it was, so it is impossible to form a belief without evidence. For example, if nothing indicated to you that I ate oatmeal for breakfast a year ago, then you would have no way of forming the belief that I did, bit it can nevertheless be reasonable to form the belief that I did based solely on the evidence of my testimony of an event that is unrepeatable and unverifiable. So while it is certainly preferable to evidence that is repeatable and verifiable, it is not reasonable to always demand evidence that is repeatable and verifiable before you will believe something, especially when it is in regard to something that is inherently not repeatable and verifiable.

To me, there is a fatal flaw in this logic. Let's say I were to take a true historical account with many verifiable points and edit it to add something that is supernatural? Would the validity of the rest of the account serve to justify belief in the supernatural claim? For me, it would not.

While it is certainly possible for a true historical account to be edited to add a supernatural, starting that possibility is far from establishing that to be the case and accounting for the rise of Christianity if that were the case.

I proportion my belief of any claim to the evidence provided AND the significance of the claim. If the claim is grand in impact, I require a higher standard of evidence.

Of course, but this is why it is important to define what you will accept as evidence, otherwise we can run into the issue of moving goalposts.

Historical documents don't provide me with a sufficient body of evidence to accept the claims of the supernatural. Add in the existence of other books which claim the same qualities, but directly contradict the Bible, and I can't find the Bible as a sound reason for me to accept a God.

I recommend this book:

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach: Michael R. Licona: 9780830827190: Amazon.com: Books

The author examines the evidence for the resurrection from the angle of what can be said as an historian. The fact that other books claim the same qualities does not at all mean that they have the same quality of evidence to support their claims.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

It's rather interesting that atheists can ask for proof that God exists but never what God is like:

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19,20)
​

God is self-existing and self-evident, God's glory is reflected in the things that were made. For me to prove God to you would be to prove something less then God. I have some hard news for you if your seriously asking for evidence, the Scriptures make clear you already have it. There's an up side to this though, we are all in the same boat until God intervenes. I have a suggestion for all it may be worth, just ask, say something along the lines of, 'God if your real I would like to see it'. If you have a shred of faith left that would be a good time to trust him in as much as your able.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

Entropy is the scientific concept that all matter tends toward lower
states of energy and that disorder is the trend of any ordered system.

It's pretty easy to find examples of ordered systems that take a
good amount of energy and intelligence to keep them going.

It's very hard to identify a complex system that doesn't.
And yet, the Cosmos exists.

 

[ug333]

Ok, then. Since you're a Methodological Naturalist and not then a Philosophical Naturalist, then would it be safe to say that you think we won't be able to gain much, if any, really verifiable evidence of a religious kind through experimental science? If not, then from whence do you think we could gain evidence that you, yourself, will accept? (See, by applying a little bit of Occam's Razor here, we basically come to a point where we recognize that we can't test something like "prayer" and then draw descriptive or other experimental evidence from that investigation. So, we slice away that avenue of evidence from being a tangible possibility.)

We also might need to shore up what we mean by your agreement that: "all things begin with epistemology." If this is the case, in what way do you think epistemology needs to be defined and applied?

So, what kind of evidence would you like to have, ug333? (I'm asking this as an exploratory invitation, ug33, not as a challenge. I'm sorry if it comes across that way. My intention really is to try to help you here as far a possible.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

So long as the religion interacts with the natural world, I think methodological naturalism can provide us evidence. The supernatural forces can never directly be tested, but they can be indirectly tested.

Of course with methodological naturalism, there will always be the response "we don't know the cause". But given a sufficient evidence, I would personally accept theism as a more likely explanation.

For example, it would be very convincing if prayer had a non-zero chance of healing an amputee because we have a good understanding of human regeneration, and regrowing limbs is well outside of our ability.

But the fine tuning argument for the universe isn't convincing because we have no clue as to the cause of the constants or to what degree they are constant. We only have our observation of the values.

I hope that makes my standards of evidence more clear.