Evidence other than hearsay

[Gumph]

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?

I think Christians cover a wide variety of characters, but I doubt the vast majority are on a par with those shady characters. The analogy is just there to show my point. I could use doctors, politicians, priests or teachers as examples if need be, where we could find instances of these people telling false truths - intentionally or otherwise. Its not the default setting, that would be counter productive, but it certainly happens often enough to be cautious about it. Yes, I have lied before.

Well, even sinners are capable of communicating truth. Is the sinner who says 2+2=4 telling a lie?

Of course they are. The challenge is in determining when they are not doing so.

You doubt the Bible when it says we are all sinners? Really?

No, I agree with the Bible on this point. Its the whole reason I don't trust the validity of the Bible yet.

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

Sorry, you have lost me here. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

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!"

Indeed they could, and should. I could then show them by doing it again or doing it to them or a 3rd party.

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.

Sorry, but I have lost the line of this particular argument amongst the many quotes and replies in this now lengthy thread. I do apologise.

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.

Because we only get one chance, one life. It appears to be far more important to us than to him. Does he not owe us that minor courtesy?

A now ancient book written by fallible humans is sufficient? I have a great problem with that and continue my search for an alternative.

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

Well I don't know much about philosophy, but objective standards used by science and criminal law would be most acceptable to me.

There is more at play in convincing people of the truth than just the quality of the evidence that it is true.

Perhaps, but the more that is at play (and at stake), the better the evidence should be. And more numerous I should add. A single book? - even if it a collection of scripts.

What jury is that, exactly?

The 2 billion or so Christians out of the 7 billion or so inhabitants of this planet. That ratio put on a 12 man jury leaves us with a mere 4 or less jurors who are convinced.

He's not diminished in the least by the unwillingness of people to acknowledge Him and live in obedience to Him.

Would you not be concerned if as a high school teacher, you were getting the same pass rates as him? Should the methods being used not be re-evaluated?

 

[Gumph]

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.

And this is precisely what the problem is. It would probably be ok if it was supplementary evidence, but its not. Its the only evidence.

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

No I can't. They are "beyond worm food".

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

I suspect they will be largely true, but will have some details missing, a few biased accounts and some distorted facts in parts.

 

[Gumph]

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.

Earlier in this thread, I was told that I would need to learn the ancient languages of the time and study the local cultures. That alone will take me much more than a year. In addition Mr Strobel apparently already had many years of investigative experience under his belt. I don't. I would need to learn those skills to. Then, in the interest of completeness, I would need to follow the same process for other major religions to make sure that they don't have superior evidence.

Less than a year. I don't think so.

 

[Gumph]

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

Exactly, and thats the whole problem. Those humans cannot be relied upon 100%.

 

[Gumph]

... what do you have to lose if you chose to believe the Bible is true?

1. I can't just choose to believe. I have to be convinced. Its not something I can pretend to do in front of an all knowing God (I could and have done so to people though).

2. If I could though, I stand the chance of being wrong, and spend the rest of my days in hell because I chose the wrong God.

3. I don't really "lose" this, but it would require a major shift in my lifestyle as I would have to study in detail and interpret the words of the Bible, and then make the decision as to whether I want to be part of the Christian God's followers, which would be no simple decision.

What do you have to lose if you chose not to believe and the Bible is true?

1. Apparently a life in heaven, although its no clear to me exactly what this entails.

2. But I now need to have the same answer to the Torah, the Qu'ran, the ....

In his book, Civilizations, the historian Naill Ferguson tells this story;

Its a nice story, but I have no way of knowing how reliable it is. Even if it 100% true, it doesn't indicate the Bible is true, it just indicates its a successful philosophy to follow.

I have a solution that might interest you if you PM me.

Why not rather post here for other readers to learn from?

 

[Gumph]

How would an experience prove truth?

On its own it most likely wouldn't. But various experiences that I could use most of my senses to verify and have a third party verify and that are repeatable, would most likely be a good enough truth for me.

 

[Gumph]

You already trust imperfect men to supply electricity etc

Only because they supplied it yesterday, so I trust them to supply it again today ... although it doesn't always happen.

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.

Indeed we can and do, but the results of these judgements are highly susceptible to our personal biases. And there are how many muslim "peers" who don't accept the expert works? There are many arguments going on now about Christian theories - is this what you mean by weaknesses being exposed?

If you don't want to read listen to the debates of william lane craig at reasonablefaith web site.

Will these direct me to an alternative source of evidence that is not the Bible?
Will these rely on something other than human opinions to strengthen the case for the Bible? (This is not really the point of this thread, but once it became clear that the bible is the only source of information we have, the thread seems to have moved in this direction)

Remember the default setting for humanity is a belief in God.

Not necessarily, I think we rather get told that as kids.

So you either seek for confirmation or evidence to refute it.

Agreed, hence my journey.

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.

The problem with almost all of these courses is that they are around the interpretation of parts of the Bible. So I struggle to get past the first 5 minutes when a quote comes out of the Bible, because that reference book has not yet been adequately authenticated.

In any event, the good folk on forums like these, give me a much broader perspective and it can be done in a time that suits my schedule.

 

[Gumph]

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

And he keeps his promise by using humans to do this teaching ?? Which Church?

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.

I think 99% may be a bit high. There is much that I took a chance on early on, but now rely on based on previous experience. There are others I took a chance on and it turned out badly. Much I can test without having to do too much believing or trusting.

 

[chilehed]

And he keeps his promise by using humans to do this teaching ??

Why are you surprised by that idea? He has a long history of doing exactly that.

Which Church?

The Church that He established, of course - the one that's been in existance since the time of the Apostles.

But again, how do you know which books are really supposed to be in the Bible? How do you know, from Scripture alone, that any of the NT books were actually written by the Apostles?

 

[chilehed]

I think 99% may be a bit high

It's probably low, unless you don't believe anything you didn't see firsthand yourself. I doubt that's the case. Heck, you can't believe in your own birthday or who your parents are without relying on other people being truthful about it.

 

[Tolworth John]

because that reference book has not yet been adequately authenticated.

Only to you.

have a look at what an experienced detective's views are of the reliability of the gospels as evidence and of the suporting documents not in the bible.

Biblical Reliability | Cold Case Christianity - Part 2

Unbelievable? Is There Enough Evidence Beyond the Gospels to Make Their Testimony Reliable? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[EJ M]

1. I can't just choose to believe. I have to be convinced. Its not something I can pretend to do in front of an all knowing God (I could and have done so to people though).

2. If I could though, I stand the chance of being wrong, and spend the rest of my days in hell because I chose the wrong God.

3. I don't really "lose" this, but it would require a major shift in my lifestyle as I would have to study in detail and interpret the words of the Bible, and then make the decision as to whether I want to be part of the Christian God's followers, which would be no simple decision.



1. Apparently a life in heaven, although its no clear to me exactly what this entails.

2. But I now need to have the same answer to the Torah, the Qu'ran, the ....



Its a nice story, but I have no way of knowing how reliable it is. Even if it 100% true, it doesn't indicate the Bible is true, it just indicates its a successful philosophy to follow.



Why not rather post here for other readers to learn from?

My suggestion for a solution is to go visit a Christian community for a month and then decide if there is a God.
I don't want to disclose the community in a public forum.

 

[food4thought]

@Gumph

The Bible teaches that "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

I think you should start with examining the arguments for theism. Once you have established the likelihood that we live in a theistic universe, the existence of God becomes probable, and praying for God to reveal Himself to you becomes a reasonable exercise. Without that step, I am afraid that your skepticism will keep you from truly seeking God with an open heart.

So are you willing to take the time to look at the arguments for a Theistic universe?

 

[Gumph]

Why are you surprised by that idea? He has a long history of doing exactly that.

{The above refers to him using humans so spread his ideas}

I am surprised because it is a highly ineffective and error prone way to accurately record messages. His long history of using this method, and only this method is indeed of great concern to me.

The Church that He established, of course - the one that's been in existance since the time of the Apostles.

There appears to be several variations of these and some inability to agree on which one is correct.

But again, how do you know which books are really supposed to be in the Bible? How do you know, from Scripture alone, that any of the NT books were actually written by the Apostles?

I don't and it worries me.

 

[Gumph]

It's probably low, unless you don't believe anything you didn't see firsthand yourself. I doubt that's the case. Heck, you can't believe in your own birthday or who your parents are without relying on other people being truthful about it.

I have had to give this some thought because these sort of examples keep coming up - and I must add that I think yours were really good ones. For convenience and practical reasons, we will accept the word of people for a host of minor interactions on any particular day. When deciding which ones to accept we will evaluate each of them superficially:

1. How significant are the consequences of this acceptance?
2. What does the other person have to gain by making a misrepresentation?
3. How qualified is that person likely to be, to be able to make their statement?
4. How unusual or grand is the statement.

There are probably a few more but these are the ones that came to mind first. If any of the above don't sit comfortably, more data is required. So in our examples:

My Birthday:

1. Insignificant. If I was born on the 24th or the 25th, or 1998 or 1999, there are no major consequences of me believing either.
2. My folks have no gain to make by lying to me about my birth date, unless its to save face and move it by 9 months, but then back to point 1.
3. My folks would likely be very qualified.
4. Fairly minor and common statement. If they said I was born in 1835, it would require some more investigation.

Decision: Accept their statement as reasonable fact and move on.

My Folks:

1. Some significance in that I might want to spend some time searching for my biological folks, but as a child there isn't as life goes on the same either way. Its only as an adult when I could investigate that there may be some.
2. They could be lying to prevent emotional upheaval. Certainly something to consider.
3. They are well qualified as they have ended up being by parents - biological or not.
4. Common statement for a parent to say they are the parent.

Decision: There are certainly possibilities that they may be wrong, but without some sort of indication otherwise, it seems reasonable to accept as fact for now.

Now lets look at the claim that the Bible is the written word God:

1. Hugely significant. I would need to change my lifestyle, my beliefs and adjust my moral views.
2. The persons originally writing the bible could have done so for political control or as a means to source funding. There is a potential for them to gain - whether or not it is established yet.
3. They are writing decades after the events and were not witnesses themselves and it seems its not even clear exactly who some of the scribes were. That is not well qualified.
4. The claims are out of this world. Miracles, other worlds, after life, etc.

Decision: I would be reluctant to accept at face value. Further investigation required.

 

[Gumph]

Only to you.

have a look at what an experienced detective's views are of the reliability of the gospels as evidence and of the suporting documents not in the bible.

Well, its not only me. There are apparently 5 billion other folk on this planet who are not convinced either and I also suspect that many of the 2 billion or so who claim they do believe, only say so to prevent peer ridicule.

Looking at this detectives views is going to achieve absolutely nothing. What exactly does he prove? At best he will prove some consensus on what people say they saw at a particular event. How on earth is he going to prove that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that God gave 10 commandments to Moses when he was by himself?

All he is doing is using man made documents to try and verify other man made documents. Yet again we are expected to take the word of a fallible human being. This does not make any sense to me.

 

[Gumph]

My suggestion for a solution is to go visit a Christian community for a month and then decide if there is a God.
I don't want to disclose the community in a public forum.

How would visiting a Christian community indicate if there is a God? What am I likely to experience there? Why is this opportunity not available to everyone around the world?

 

[Gumph]

I think you should start with examining the arguments for theism. Once you have established the likelihood that we live in a theistic universe, the existence of God becomes probable, and praying for God to reveal Himself to you becomes a reasonable exercise. Without that step, I am afraid that your skepticism will keep you from truly seeking God with an open heart.

So are you willing to take the time to look at the arguments for a Theistic universe?

I'm not sure you need to go to the trouble of arguing for a Theistic universe. Its a solution I would be quite comfortable with. The big problem is determining which god.

Would it not be reasonable for God to expect some skepticism? Otherwise we would simply worship any God mentioned to us. In any case I have gone beyond prayer and am not actively seeking advice - this forum being an example.

 

[EJ M]

How would visiting a Christian community indicate if there is a God? What am I likely to experience there? Why is this opportunity not available to everyone around the world?

Maybe observing how Christians live in contrast to the rest of the world?
Likely, love, joy and peace.
Sincere seekers will find what they need everyone in the world.
You seemed like one who is open to truth when you see it so I suggested it to you.

 

[Tolworth John]

All he is doing is using man made documents to try and verify other man made documents. Yet again we are expected to take the word of a fallible human being. This does not make any sense to me.

Yet you take the words of men who donot believe to be reliable and trustworthy.

A detective demonstrates that the evidence of the gospel is reliable by using the same detective skills he used to solve cold cases on the bible and you dismiss it because of what?

Biblical accuracy look up Sir William Mitchell Ramsay and read what he found out about the writings of Luke as he dug up much of the middle east.

Investigate the findings of Gary Habermas the formost expert on the resurrection. Look at what Erhert says about the NT, even he an atheist accepts that Jesus lived died and that the disciples believed they had met a risen Jesus.
You discover from Habermass that there is only one explanation that fits all the known facts.
That Jesus did rise from the dead. If you don't believe it, prove it wrong.
If you can't you still have to account for the resurrection and the effect it has had on people over the years.