And they say, "There's no Evidence ... !!!"

[Quid est Veritas?]

You trust what you read much, much too easily.
A good historian does not automatically believe anything he is told. He checks it out. He judges it's reliability. He weighs alternative explanations.

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. The men who wrote the gospels would not have known Jesus of Nazareth is he walked up to them in the street. In addition, Lukes's gospel was the only one which even claims to be an actual history, and we have seen that Like was an extremely poor historian.


Don't get all worked up. I wasn't saying that you can't call Jesus's magic tricks miracles.

Um, you trust Carrier it seems - a man whose Alma Mater cut ties with him, passes no peer review anymore, is relegated to the wilderness in his discipline, and no longerhas any Academic affiliation.

People in glass houses should not throw stones, when it comes to poor historians.

Besides, we haven't established Luke/Acts a poor historian. What citations do you expect for a history about common folk, not kings and Emperors? A lot of his ancillary information is confirmed in droves, like Titles and names of officials, contemporary events like the Jews expelled from Rome or uprisings in Judaea, etc. It is fallacious to place a history of common Galilean fisherman against Suetonius' one on Caesars - akin to as if the same type of sources should be given for someone writing a biography of his father say, than someone writing one on Winston Churchill.

Quite simply, non Christian sources have nothing to offer, except to confirm that Christians existed, and had some sort of religion based around a figure called Jesus.

Alone, yes, they don't tell us much. But acting as corroboration for Christian sources, they say a great deal.

If you want to know about a small sect, do you read their own writings or only what others say about them? The former has far more incentive to give lots of information, the other will always be limited.

Anyway, I see far more trying to excuse evidence by the critical, than that against. I mean, Carrier spends much more time trying to break down Josephus or Suetonius or Tacitus than anything else, and essentially ends up just looking foolish.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Bart Ehrman & the God of Christmas

although it is popular to see many internet atheists today claiming that Jesus never existed, Ehrman shows them the foolishness of their ways. This became apparent during a question and answer session when a “Jesus myther” claimed that he did not see any evidence for a historical Jesus. Here is Ehrman’s fantastic response:

“Well, I do. I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. I HAVE A WHOLE BOOK ON IT! There is a lot of evidence; there is so much evidence [for the existence of Jesus]!

I know in the crowds you all run around with it is commonly thought that Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there is nobody, I mean, this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY!

There is no scholar at any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity – any related field – who doubts that Jesus existed!

Now, that is not evidence, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution versus the theory of creationism – and every scholar, at every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you’ve got a different opinion you had better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking that Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources. That’s why, and I give the details in my book. Early and independent sources indicate that certainly Jesus existed. One author that we know about KNEW JESUS’ BROTHER, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an eyewitness to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I’m sorry. I respect your disbelief, but if you want to go where the evidence goes? I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish.”

 

[Erik Nelson]

Jesus made it clear when He summed up the entire Law in two simple and easy to remember commands (Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39):

1- Love God first!
2- Everybody love everybody (from your neighbors to your enemies)!​

Is this? What people are really rejecting? Love humans on Earth? Heck No! Just seeking some clarification.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, that, along with Epicurus' Argument from Evil and/or its more modern formulations.

Yeah, I don't think any argument that ends in "therefore there is no god" is a good one. They all inevitably have a premise to the effect of "if there is a god he must be like this" and that premise is the one I have a problem with.

We can ask 'why' in these cases, but at the end of the day, if we all can recognize that God just ... didn't ... give us comprehensive, systematic explanations to all that we ponder and pain about in life, then we're all left in an Existential quandry where we either decide to proceed with our philosophical investigations in light of how things 'have been' and ponder a more ideal world to come in Christ by doing the Kierkegaardian Kick, OR we instead decide to just fuss and fume about, commit deicide, and then do the Nietzsche Hustle until our knees and backs give out.

I think I've settled into "No one can know". I'll wait until something comes along that makes me feel like I should believe, or it won't, but I don't think it's possible to demonstrate "God" ever.

I don't know. I'm not sure anyone really has a clear answer to that since none of us seems to be able to ring God up and schedule an interview. However, D. Stephen Long has a brief essay entitled, "God Is Not Nice," and we might ponder a few of the things he says in that essay. At at one place early on in the essay, Long makes a brief overture to Dostoevsky and his Grand Inquistor from his famous novel to contextualize the strangeness of this whole "God in Christ" thing, the one in which we wrestle with the idea that God is not just Savior, but Lord. This is similar in some ways to what we find to be the disposition of people in Psalm 2, where there's this bit about God's Authority is something that we human beings just can't seem to acclimate to.

I kind of have a problem with people saying that God is the standard for "Good". He lives by a completely different ruleset than the rest of us where ends justify the means, so we can't really compare any good deeds to Him. We can't live up to what He demands, but He knows we can't. I think He could have designed us well enough to live up to those demands though, and He chose not to.

...that's a big issue to get into, so at the moment, I won't wade too far into on this one. But, I will say, that if the book of Revelation is true, along with all of the other apocalyptic sections of the Bible, then despite the fact that we can find other forms of 'premonition of evil' in other religions and/or cults doesn't fully come to bear upon whether on not we can begin to say, "Here, Finally, is an instance or two or three or four, where this kind of thing is definitively manifesting...." In the case of the Bible, I would agree with those who like to cite that what Jesus calls Evil is nothing too new, nothing that other religious figures in history haven't also called out as likewise being Evil. But regardless, we're looking for a particular recipe of Evil, not just any similar generic descriptor of Evil. Sure, we can all say we see Apple Pie when we see it--it's fairly obvious. But to say that one Apple Pie is the same as every other Apple Pie in flavor, texture, and composition would be to equivocation on the whole ...

If your "if" is right, I agree. I'd have to see specifically what you're talking about though. Some apple pies have cheddar cheese on top, that would be unique. I'm not trying to equivocate, but it's hard not to when you're still at the point of being vague.

How about discussing what you think we're both dancing around? If we do, then I guess I need to switch gears and put on my "Hammer Time" get up.

We're dancing around the various topics neither of us has committed to discuss in detail... I thought we agreed we didn't want to try to discuss all of them simultaneously.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Those are all great ideas regarding what you'd like the evidence to be, Ana. I think we'd all like to see a miracle performed as a response to our prayers. This question then would be: if God indeed answered our prayers in a miraculous way, are we then ready to do whatever it is He asks of us ...?

I don't see why not...

That's like putting the cart before the horse though.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I don't see why not...

That's like putting the cart before the horse though.

Thousands of reported miracles over thousands of years.

Of exactly the kind you claim you would accept if they occured.

Except thousands have occurred over thousands of years ALREADY in the past past water under the bridge. Spilled milk.

Unreasonable Faith [in earth as an isolated system, independent of the heavens]
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith [in earth as an isolated system, independent of the heavens] when we REFUSE TO ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just exactly HOW MANY TIMES must God in heaven reinvent this EXACT wheel before you acknowledge that God in heaven exists, that humans on earth are not alone?

Just once...I need to see it. Without that, these are just old mythological stories to me....the kind found in just about any religion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thousands of reported miracles over thousands of years.

Of exactly the kind you claim you would accept if they occured.

Except thousands have occurred over thousands of years ALREADY in the past past water under the bridge. Spilled milk.

Unreasonable Faith [in earth as an isolated system, independent of the heavens]
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence.

Stories are stories.

We hold an unreasonable faith [in earth as an isolated system, independent of the heavens] when we REFUSE TO ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

What's "unreasonable" about it? By your own words....this is the sort of thing god does. So why doesn't he do it where everyone can see?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Stories are stories.

And what exactly are your words here?

why doesn't he do it where everyone can see?

Saint John the Baptist was tossed into a pot of boiling oil and miraculously survived in the middle of the call iciam in Rome, arguably the largest city on Earth at the time, 70,000 pairs of eyes witnessed the miracle. They were all converted to the faith. Emperor Nero before his own people, was forced to commute his own capital sentence to exile instead.

You demand higher standards of evidence than emperor Nero? What makes you so special?

This boils down to 70,000, eyewitnesses reported a miracle. 2000 years ago in Rome.

Now today separated from the event by thousands of years and tens of thousands of miles. You come along and say "Belay that order, it didn't happen".

How the heck do you know??

Are you omniscient omnipresent? You were there at the time. You've analyzed the video footage and proved it didn't happen.

70,000 eyewitnesses, including emperor Nero commuting his own sentence, which he issued with his own mouth. Eating his own words eating Crow before his own people in his own capital...

All tell the same story, a miracle occurred.

You're the lone outlier here. Why is your version of events so much more credible??

• 70,000 Romans. "Wow, that was a miracle."
• Emperor Nero. "Uh yeah, well let Saint John live, then."
• Anna the IST. "No guys nothing happened nothing whatsoever at all."

Why does everyone take your side? Why does your version of events persuade everyone? Why is your story the most credible?

"Miracles can't happen and so they don't". That is CIRCULAR REASONING. That isn't even logical. That can't be logically true no matter what, it doesn't even qualify as a logical argument.

Even if you're right, in this case, it's only by ACCIDENT. Not by any. Cleverness on your part.

When this miracle was (allegedly) manifested in Rome in the heart of the empire. Our ancestors were living in dirt floored huts. Paying taxes to the same city. Who are we to say no it didn't happen? On just exactly what authority??

And if we do say so. Why does anybody believe us over emperor Nero? Emperor Nero was an eyewitness, he was on scene at the time he ate his own words. He commuted his own sentence. St John wound up on the island of Patmos instead of boiled in a pot. Which is why we can now read revelation?

Emperor Nero slew. Saint Peter Saint Paul. The Christians of Rome. Just what exactly compelled him to exile john instead.

• It would have taken a MIRACLE to get emperor Nero to spare John's life.
• John's life was spared. By the emperor, only he had the authority.
• ERGO something miraculous must have occurred.

"modes ponens"
QED

at least that's logical.

"Miracles can't happen and so they don't" is CIRCULAR non-REASONING

whether you or anyone else here admits it. You are implicitly, claiming unto yourself. Omni presence and omniscience. You are saying that you know, everything that happened everywhere and when.

That is why you can claim to calculate with all your scientific equations. And get all of the right answers, which must have occured and couldn't have occurred otherwise because you factored everything into your equation. You know all of the equations you know all of. The terms in the equations. So you just just just must must must have to have to have to get the right answer. You just couldn't be surprised.

Because your argument ultimately boils down. To ur omniscient you are on the present you know, everything about everywhere. And when every place and a time and you know all of the equations all of the laws of physics and so knowing all of the terms in all of the equations you must get the right answer every time.

You are never surprised.
Because you are omniscient and omnipresent.

That is what you are, ultimately, claiming.

Allegedly heavenly powers intervene on to earth from time to time. Now and again here and there. Employing non physical nonmaterial. Means to throw off human expectations.

In case you weren't clear on this. Religion does not deny that those expectations are pretty good. Usually good enough to get close enough to the right enough answer.

Except when heavenly powers intervene and throw off our expectations. The anomaly is called a miracle.

Religion doesn't say that miracles violate the laws of physics. Just that there are. Factors and influences and energies and powers. that you're not taking into account in your equations so that you actually get the wrong answer.

The allegation is, there are unknown unknowns out there. Every once in awhile those unknown unknowns throw us for a loop.

Wouldn't be the first time would it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And what exactly are your words here?

What part don't you understand?

Saint John the Baptist was tossed into a pot of boiling oil and miraculously survived in the middle of the call iciam in Rome, arguably the largest city on Earth at the time, 70,000 pairs of eyes witnessed the miracle. They were all converted to the faith. Emperor Nero before his own people, was forced to commute his own capital sentence to exile instead.

You demand higher standards of evidence than emperor Nero? What makes you so special?

Not at all...I'm simply asking for the same standards of evidence.

As for violating the laws of physics...of course they can. Jesus walked on water didn't he? Turned one fish into many? Clear violations of physics.

 

[juvenissun]

On what topic? God and Jesus, or anything? I can guarantee you there isn't evidence for anything, and I'd argue there's very little evidence for god or Jesus.

A piece of leaf, a piece of rock ... ARE all evidences of God's existence.
There are many literature record the the life of Jesus.

Why are those not evidences?

 

[Erik Nelson]

The Witness of the Anti-Christians

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm going to have to bow out now. Pressures of work have risen this week, and I don't have the leisure to reply more. Erik, good luck in your search for truth.

 

[Erik Nelson]

What part don't you understand?

You have your story. "Miracles don't occur because they can't because they don't because they can't. Because they never have. Because anybody who's ever said otherwise must have been wrong."

Emperor Nero and 70,000 Romans in the Colosseum have another story. A miracle occurred when the emperor tried to execute John the Apostle.

Why should anybody trust your story? Removed from the events in question by thousands of miles of space and thousands of years of time.

Over the direct eye witnesses?

Not at all...I'm simply asking for the same standards of evidence.

If you don't believe anything anybody ever tells you, why should anybody else ever believe anything you ever tell them?

Fair is fair isn't it?

In that sense, you are clearly presuming special treatment. Everybody believes you. You don't have to believe reports from anyone else.

As for violating the laws of physics...of course they can. Jesus walked on water didn't he? Turned one fish into many? Clear violations of physics.

Not at all. With all due respect you're missing my point.

The force of gravity...

Fg = GMm/r2 + X

where M&m represent all of the masses we KNOW about...

And X represents all of the unknowns, we don't know about.

For example, you know about the asteroid Oumuamua... You KNOW that NASA space scientists used exactly that equation to determine the acceleration anomaly of the object. You KNOW that for that object X is GREATER than zero, which is why reputable scientists like Abraham Loeb have argued that it may be an alien probe.

We don't know what X really is maybe its radiation pressure. Maybe it's cometary off gassing. What is it? given our poor observations all we can say is that some UNKNOWN UNSEEN FORCE affected the object. Making its motion ANOMALOUS. With respect to our expectations, given what we know from what we can see and can observe.

Fg - GMm/r2 = X >0

the logic is EXACTLY the same. Some unknown unseen force allegedly affected Jesus's body. It allowed him to levitate over water and ultimately. Ascended him skyward after the resurrection. something like a tractor beam, say

X>0

to believe in a miracle is not in any way, shape or form, to believe that the laws of physics in your science textbook or wrong.

The claim is human knowledge is incomplete. We don't detect all the forces masses and energies around.

Just like dark matter, you believe in dark matter because we can observe its gravitational influence is even though we can't deserve it. Dark matter is exactly this kind of argument.

Fg - GMm/r2 = X >>0

X = lots and lots of dark matter.​

The claim is that Jesus is Apostles witnessed DARK MATTER LIKE EFFECTS on the Lake and at the Ascension.

You believe there's dark matter in heaven. According to the Apostles there was dark matter on Earth once or twice also.

So, please understand this point, miracles do not in any way, shape or form violate known laws of physics.

Miracles imply. Allege claim the presence of UNSEEN POWERS AND ENERGIES AND FORCES that humans don't optically observe with their eyes.

"Dark matter and dark energy on Earth"

http://mydigitalseminary.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Unseen-Realm.jpg

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have your story. "Miracles don't occur because they can't because they don't because they can't. Because they never have. Because anybody who's ever said otherwise must have been wrong."

Who are you quoting here? I'm certain I've never said those words.

You should remove this from your post....it's extremely dishonest of you.

Emperor Nero and 70,000 Romans in the Colosseum have another story. A miracle occurred when the emperor tried to execute John the Apostle.

Why should anybody trust your story?

What is "my story"?

Removed from the events in question by thousands of miles of space and thousands of years of time.

Over the direct eye witnesses?

What direct eyewitnesses? Do you actually have the testimonials of 70,000 people who witnessed what you claim?

I don't think you do...and you're in no position to speak for anyone. You've already shown your dishonesty in that regard.

to believe in a miracle is not in any way, shape or form, to believe that the laws of physics in your science textbook or wrong.

I never said that.

So, please understand this point, miracles do not in any way, shape or form violate known laws of physics.

Creating many fish magically out of thin air clearly violates the law of the conservation of matter.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. Last things, first. You said,

We're dancing around the various topics neither of us has committed to discuss in detail... I thought we agreed we didn't want to try to discuss all of them simultaneously.

I agree it would be best to pick one. So, read through my brief responses and questions below, and pick one of these that you think would be worth delving into further as we relate all of this to the discussion we're having about there being "No Evidence."

Yeah, I don't think any argument that ends in "therefore there is no god" is a good one. They all inevitably have a premise to the effect of "if there is a god he must be like this" and that premise is the one I have a problem with.

Now, why is it that you're able to understand this but so many other skeptics here just can't seem to grasp this, Nick?

I think I've settled into "No one can know". I'll wait until something comes along that makes me feel like I should believe, or it won't, but I don't think it's possible to demonstrate "God" ever.

...I get your general gist here, but 'ever' is a long time. How about just settling for "in our lifetime"?

I kind of have a problem with people saying that God is the standard for "Good". He lives by a completely different ruleset than the rest of us where ends justify the means, so we can't really compare any good deeds to Him. We can't live up to what He demands, but He knows we can't. I think He could have designed us well enough to live up to those demands though, and He chose not to.

This is probably one of the more philosophically robust things I've heard you say. So, it seems to me that if you're right, God is neither a Deontological ethicist nor a Utilitarian ... but I'm not sure how our being able to know this would play into how we would evaluate "evidence" for His existence or, more importantly, for the validity of the Bible on the whole.

If your "if" is right, I agree. I'd have to see specifically what you're talking about though. Some apple pies have cheddar cheese on top, that would be unique. I'm not trying to equivocate, but it's hard not to when you're still at the point of being vague.

Well, I can make it a little less vague, but even doing so probably wouldn't provide either you or anyone else with any final pieces to the puzzle.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see why not...

That's like putting the cart before the horse though.

I don't know about that. The problem here is that the Bible is chock full of illustrations in both the Old and New Testaments which tell us that human beings have a queer epistemic response pattern when it comes to following through in instances where God really does show up ...

 

[Moral Orel]

Now, why is it that you're able to understand this but so many other skeptics here just can't seem to grasp this, Nick?

Why doesn't UberGenius understand this in his "Tricks New Atheists Play" series of threads? Any of the other theists around here who want to define "atheism" out of existence by saying, "You're not an atheist unless you claim there is no god" fall into this pit as well. I'm not saying plenty of skeptics around here don't think this way too, but it isn't limited to us un-believers, it's a pretty common misconception.

...I get your general gist here, but 'ever' is a long time. How about just settling for "in our lifetime"?

I dunno. Let's say you die and go experience Heaven. Given that anything is possible with an omnipotent being, how will you ever know that even Heaven is real and not just another layer of The Matrix?

This is probably one of the more philosophically robust things I've heard you say. So, it seems to me that if you're right, God is neither a Deontological ethicist nor a Utilitarian ... but I'm not sure how our being able to know this would play into how we would evaluate "evidence" for His existence or, more importantly, for the validity of the Bible on the whole.

Well we've touched on the Problem of Evil and this sort of thing comes up in that topic pretty frequently. Like I said earlier though, it wouldn't be evidence of existence or non-existence, it could only be an argument about what God is like.

Well, I can make it a little less vague, but even doing so probably wouldn't provide either you or anyone else with any final pieces to the puzzle.

I'm getting curious about this one. It isn't going to be "the final piece" but I'm curious whether you can establish it as evidence or not. Can you show me an apple pie with cheddar on top, or are they really all the same basic recipe? It might, quite ironically, come down to a completely subjective judgement of uniqueness or severity or numerousness; remember that your statements about subjectiveness were what started all of this.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know about that. The problem here is that the Bible is chock full of illustrations in both the Old and New Testaments which tell us that human beings have a queer epistemic response pattern when it comes to following through in instances where God really does show up ...

Which is neither here nor there...

You asked what it would take for someone to believe, what kind of evidence and why that kind of evidence. That's the answer.

Now what kind of evidence would convince you that your belief in christianity is wrong? I think that's a more useful follow up question.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A piece of leaf, a piece of rock ... ARE all evidences of God's existence.
There are many literature record the the life of Jesus.

Why are those not evidences?

Rocks and leaves aren't evidence of god's existence. Evidence is something that must unambiguously point toward a conclusion.

If you say rocks and leaves are evidence of your god, and I say they are evidence of universe creating pixies, we have equal justification, therefore the "evidence" is useless. More realistically, they are evidence for neither your god, or my pixies.

As for the literature, the literature is the claim. Evidence is something that backs the claim. Just because somebody wrote something down doesn't mean it's true. Evidence is used to back the claims made in the writings.