Evidence

[Loudmouth]

Haven't you been following along with the rest of us Jonny?

I have been following your tendency to make empty assertions.

 

[Colter]

I have been following your tendency to make empty assertions.

Do you have any evidence for that?

How do we know you aren't just imagining that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have any evidence for that?

How do we know you aren't just imagining that?

"Of coarse God exists, the universe would collapse without him."--Colter

This was not accompanied by any evidence, and a request for evidence yielded none.

 

[dms1972]

If my neighbor tells me they were abducted by aliens last night and went aboard their space craft and was returned home, I probably would not believe that claim without significant evidence.

What would you accept as significant evidence of alien abduction?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have any evidence for that?

Post #278

 

[bhsmte]

What would you accept as significant evidence of alien abduction?

If I witnessed it with my own eyes and was confident I was not hallucinating. A video of the event, that clearly shows what the neighbor says occurred.

To a lessor degree, I would also give it a bit of credence, if a whole bunch of neighbors came forward and stated they witnessed the whole thing and they all presented similar stories and I knew them to be reliable people.

 

[TillICollapse]

Because, we don't have ANY evidence of the truth of the claims of Bible characters from 3000 years ago that prove the miraculous things you mentioned. You and I might discuss those things as an established fact, but that's not going to work with the Atheist. I'm sorry to dash to pieces any allusions that you might have about the sincerity of some of these people with Atheist monikers, but they already know that you can't provide irrefutable evidence, they are playing games with you. They don't want to "get along", they want to make you question your faith and or make you look like a fool! Their ego's derive a sick sort of pleasure out of asking entangling questions. You might think my assessment to be unfair or harsh, but Jesus didn't mince words, he told them point blank "your father is the devil!"

You see, the true neutral, non-believers, who don't care and just want to live life without the Jehovah's Witnesses wondering through their yards, these people aren't here. They are content, they "live and let live." But these guys are promoters of the doctrine's of doubt, the ideology of godlessness. A neutral person does not search the web for a "Christian Forum", join with an Atheist moniker, then proceed to tell you that you are imaging God because you can't provide sufficient proof of your faith in him. It's not that they have honest doubts, their doubts have become hardened into belief in a godless universe.

You seem to assume an awful lot about others. Are you able to have a discussion without relying upon your assumption of their motives and your personal view of them ? For example, speaking only for myself ... in this post alone you incorrectly assume things about me and apply them to me when they are not applicable.

One of the simple things about evidence, is that it almost doesn't matter what a person's motives are or aren't concerning it: the evidence speaks for itself. I remember in high school I was a muscled football player, and I often had a look which might give someone the impression I wouldn't be able to string sentences together ... but I also had a "brain". When I signed up for Calculus BC, the class president was in that class ... a little tiny kid who played no sports, didn't attempt to play sports, and didn't really have that good of grades. I had absolutely no issue with any of that, I could have cared less who were the "jocks" and who weren't. And I was never friends with him. Not even the same social circles. But HE did have issue with me, even though I had never spoken two words to him all throughout high school, simply because we never were in the same vicinity for any real reason. He took issue with me from day one. The teacher did as well ... she didn't think I would be able to handle the class because she saw me as a "jock". She even wanted others in the class who knew me to vouch for me that I may be able to handle it ... she did this in front of the entire class, putting me on the spot. So did he, he even said as much to my face. A kid I didn't even know, taking issue with me because of my athletics, my physique, etc. I'll admit it took guts for him to treat me that way, considering the physical difference between us ... but I never got off on picking on others like that, and I also didn't like to use my prowess to intimidate or threaten others, esp if they were no physical threat to me.

I even remember asking him, halfway throughout the year, if he needed help on something. He was struggling, and I overhead, and asked him. He looked at me and laughed, and said, "Not from you. I'll ask from Jon over here ... he's a prodigy, you're not."

I ended up getting the second highest overall average in that class. It was like 103 or something. Him and the prodigy were far down on the list, in the C's. I also ended up being my teacher's favorite student ... we formed a friendship, and she would call on me during class quite often, to her own delight and to mine as well, because I liked the challenge. I remember the day our grades on the finals were posted, that kid happened to walk up to the postings at the same time I did. We both read out scores ... he asked me mine, I told him. He said to me, "I guess you pretty much owned that class didn't you ...". It was the first time he acknowledged anything about me that wasn't negative, and that not only did I end up handling the class just fine, I excelled. I just looked at him and walked off. I didn't even smile at him, grin, nothing ... no need. I never once throughout the year corrected his ignorant assertions concerning me, nor spoke to his ironic issues with me being a "jock". I even tried to help him ... yet he wanted help from someone he viewed as a "prodigy" and they both almost bombed the class. What did I let do the talking for me ? The evidence. Not my words, but the evidence. Our "motives" didn't matter concerning the evidence. What he thought of me fallaciously, or what I would come to think of his pettiness ... didn't matter. Grades themselves don't necessarily matter either, they can be an indicator obviously but not the final say. However I did offer to help him, and perhaps he would have also seen in my attempt to tutor him that I had a grasp and was capable as well. Evidence. Demonstrating.

So all your personal assumptions aside ... you never answered a couple of my questions: is it ridiculous for people to ask for objective evidence concerning God ? 3000 years ago, or now, what's the difference ? As Loudmouth points out.

I'll stick with that question for now, and leave the others to rest.

Does God no longer exist? Does God no longer interact with our universe?

 

[dms1972]

Originally Posted by dms1972

What would you accept as significant evidence of alien abduction?
​

If I witnessed it with my own eyes and was confident I was not hallucinating. A video of the event, that clearly shows what the neighbor says occurred.

To a lessor degree, I would also give it a bit of credence, if a whole bunch of neighbors came forward and stated they witnessed the whole thing and they all presented similar stories and I knew them to be reliable people.

ok thats fair.

So first hand visual evidence or several reliable witnesses?

Do you agree it was the same back in the first century for most people?

Would you be interested in reading this?

 

[bhsmte]

ok thats fair.

So first hand visual evidence or several reliable witnesses?

Do you agree it was the same back in the first century for most people?

Would you be interested in reading this?

I have devoured the work of many NT scholars and historians and I was a Christian for 40 years.

If you look at things objectively and apply the historical method, the claims of the NT are shaky at best.

The gospels were not penned until 40-70 years after Jesus died.

The gospels were penned by anonymous authors.

The originals of the gospels are lost and we only have copies starting 200 years after Jesus died.

Stories in the gospels have been shown to have been changed or altered over time.

There are different accounts about Jesus in the 4 gospels, that do not match up.

To have a valid eye witness account, you would need to identify the eye witness and directly determine it was their account that has been documented. The gospels don't come close to doing this and is why, most scholars and historians, consider the NT a work of theology vs a work of credible history.

 

[Colter]

You seem to assume an awful lot about others. Are you able to have a discussion without relying upon your assumption of their motives and your personal view of them ? For example, speaking only for myself ... in this post alone you incorrectly assume things about me and apply them to me when they are not applicable.

One of the simple things about evidence, is that it almost doesn't matter what a person's motives are or aren't concerning it: the evidence speaks for itself. I remember in high school I was a muscled football player, and I often had a look which might give someone the impression I wouldn't be able to string sentences together ... but I also had a "brain". When I signed up for Calculus BC, the class president was in that class ... a little tiny kid who played no sports, didn't attempt to play sports, and didn't really have that good of grades. I had absolutely no issue with any of that, I could have cared less who were the "jocks" and who weren't. And I was never friends with him. Not even the same social circles. But HE did have issue with me, even though I had never spoken two words to him all throughout high school, simply because we never were in the same vicinity for any real reason. He took issue with me from day one. The teacher did as well ... she didn't think I would be able to handle the class because she saw me as a "jock". She even wanted others in the class who knew me to vouch for me that I may be able to handle it ... she did this in front of the entire class, putting me on the spot. So did he, he even said as much to my face. A kid I didn't even know, taking issue with me because of my athletics, my physique, etc. I'll admit it took guts for him to treat me that way, considering the physical difference between us ... but I never got off on picking on others like that, and I also didn't like to use my prowess to intimidate or threaten others, esp if they were no physical threat to me.

I even remember asking him, halfway throughout the year, if he needed help on something. He was struggling, and I overhead, and asked him. He looked at me and laughed, and said, "Not from you. I'll ask from Jon over here ... he's a prodigy, you're not."

I ended up getting the second highest overall average in that class. It was like 103 or something. Him and the prodigy were far down on the list, in the C's. I also ended up being my teacher's favorite student ... we formed a friendship, and she would call on me during class quite often, to her own delight and to mine as well, because I liked the challenge. I remember the day our grades on the finals were posted, that kid happened to walk up to the postings at the same time I did. We both read out scores ... he asked me mine, I told him. He said to me, "I guess you pretty much owned that class didn't you ...". It was the first time he acknowledged anything about me that wasn't negative, and that not only did I end up handling the class just fine, I excelled. I just looked at him and walked off. I didn't even smile at him, grin, nothing ... no need. I never once throughout the year corrected his ignorant assertions concerning me, nor spoke to his ironic issues with me being a "jock". I even tried to help him ... yet he wanted help from someone he viewed as a "prodigy" and they both almost bombed the class. What did I let do the talking for me ? The evidence. Not my words, but the evidence. Our "motives" didn't matter concerning the evidence. What he thought of me fallaciously, or what I would come to think of his pettiness ... didn't matter. Grades themselves don't necessarily matter either, they can be an indicator obviously but not the final say. However I did offer to help him, and perhaps he would have also seen in my attempt to tutor him that I had a grasp and was capable as well. Evidence. Demonstrating.

So all your personal assumptions aside ... you never answered a couple of my questions: is it ridiculous for people to ask for objective evidence concerning God ? 3000 years ago, or now, what's the difference ? As Loudmouth points out.

I'll stick with that question for now, and leave the others to rest.

* You assume that I've come late to the party, I've been around the block a few times with these same posters. But having said that, why don't you dance with them for a while and get back to me?

* No, it's not ridiculous to ask for evidence, Jesus was asked for a "sign". What was his answer? Ummm, this Loudmouth character, do you know what the "fsm" movement is? Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, if you have irrefutable evidence of God then present it to them.

 

[TillICollapse]

* You assume that I've come late to the party, I've been around the block a few times with these same posters. But having said that, why don't you dance with them for a while and get back to me?

Again you are assuming. You're even assuming that I'm assuming lol.

I never assumed you came late to the party. You, on the other hand, don't know how many parties I've been too or who their guests were. Which again, is largely irrelevant. Are you content with your assumptions ? Why or why not ?

* No, it's not ridiculous to ask for evidence, Jesus was asked for a "sign". What was his answer? Ummm, this Loudmouth character, do you know what the "fsm" movement is? Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you asking *me* if I know what the FSM is ? Of course I do. Pastaferians, etc.

I also remember Thomas asking for evidence. And as I already pointed out, evidence was offered with those who didn't believe as well, according to the scriptures.

Anyway, if you have irrefutable evidence of God then present it to them.

I never claimed to have such evidence. But I see you shifted the burden from yourself.

Which goes back to my other question I was going to drop: do you ever take responsibility or is it someone else's fault if you don't produce that type of evidence ? You acknowledge that it's possible, yet don't produce it. Do you ever take responsibility for that or do you shift the blame ?

 

[Loudmouth]

* You assume that I've come late to the party, I've been around the block a few times with these same posters. But having said that, why don't you dance with them for a while and get back to me?

* No, it's not ridiculous to ask for evidence, Jesus was asked for a "sign". What was his answer? Ummm, this Loudmouth character, do you know what the "fsm" movement is? Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, if you have irrefutable evidence of God then present it to them.

The FSM movement started with a letter which was meant to parody creationism during a political debate in Kansas over the inclusion of creationism in the school curriculum.

It is also meant to parody the use of empty assertions that are so often used by christians, such as those found in your posts. You think that by simply asserting something, you have somehow spoken a truth. The ridiculousness of this type of strategy is made manifest in the FSM letter:

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence."
Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Sound familiar?

 

[Colter]

Again you are assuming. You're even assuming that I'm assuming lol.

I never assumed you came late to the party. You, on the other hand, don't know how many parties I've been too or who their guests were. Which again, is largely irrelevant. Are you content with your assumptions ? Why or why not ?

Are you asking *me* if I know what the FSM is ? Of course I do. Pastaferians, etc.

I also remember Thomas asking for evidence. And as I already pointed out, evidence was offered with those who didn't believe as well, according to the scriptures.

I never claimed to have such evidence. But I see you shifted the burden from yourself.

Which goes back to my other question I was going to drop: do you ever take responsibility or is it someone else's fault if you don't produce that type of evidence ? You acknowledge that it's possible, yet don't produce it. Do you ever take responsibility for that or do you shift the blame ?

Shift what blame? I've conceded many times on these threads, God cannot be proven with the material type of evidence that skeptics demand. Those who know God can't provide sufficient proof that they do, we don't need your approval of our faith.

Thomas said he wouldn't believe in the resurrection unless and until he saw it with his own eyes. I believe in the resurrection without the visual proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thomas said he wouldn't believe in the resurrection unless and until he saw it with his own eyes.

Was he supplied that evidence?

If God can supply that evidence to Thomas, why can't he supply the same evidence to us?

 

[dms1972]

I have devoured the work of many NT scholars and historians and I was a Christian for 40 years.

Out of interest which ones if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Chany]

Are you asking if I agree with the notion that one can twist facts to fit their argument and argue against conflicting ideas? Of course I agree. I can also acknowledge that the same thing is often applied by the opposing end. When supporting evidence is presented it is reached desperately to find a scientific reasoning for it, is it not?
But any logical person within and outside of Christianity should of course avoid doing so. if you are honest with yourself you can see how this notion is applied to both sides.

I am not merely saying a person is purposefully or knowingly twisting facts, committing equivocation fallacys or strawman arguments. I'm referring to someone committing these actions because of a psychological need. They aren't consciously aware of what they are doing.

For example, consider someone undergoing cognitive dissonance from a perceived insufficient reward and performing psychological gymnastics in order to make the reward sufficient. They aren't consciously deciding to undergo cognitive dissonance, nor are the consciously deciding to perform mental gymnastics.

 

[TillICollapse]

Shift what blame?

By that I meant you seem to blame the person asking. Look at your posts and all the name calling and fault finding you have with those asking. Look back to that picture I linked too ... did the motives of the person asking matter whether or not the other person could provide proof they had an apple ? No, they provided the apple, that was that.

But anyways, I'm getting ready to leave here in a little bit, and so I'm out ...

 

[kristina411]

I am not merely saying a person is purposefully or knowingly twisting facts, committing equivocation fallacys or strawman arguments. I'm referring to someone committing these actions because of a psychological need. They aren't consciously aware of what they are doing.

For example, consider someone undergoing cognitive dissonance from a perceived insufficient reward and performing psychological gymnastics in order to make the reward sufficient. They aren't consciously deciding to undergo cognitive dissonance, nor are the consciously deciding to perform mental gymnastics.

It can go both ways whether consciously or subconsciously.
A skeptic hears a miracle performed was seen by many and because they can not deny its authenticity their mind searches for a scientific or "logical" reason, according to their standards.
A Christian hears scientific data suggesting (nothing has proven) creationism may not be as accurate, the Christian begins to search for ways the scientific data could be false.

It goes both ways. It is the same in many conflicting groups. Only a few are in actual search for truth, the rest are in place, content with ignoring anything they don't like to hear.

I have requested this thread be closed as other posters are off topic and beginning the topic of apologetics. If you wish to further this conversation I would be interested to hear your thoughts as well, through pm or another thread. I'm still awaiting freodins response as well.

Its a shame that it has gone so far off topic. I had hopes there would be some reasonable people to help steer everyone in the right direction of effective discussion.

 

[bhsmte]

Out of interest which ones if you don't mind me asking?

David Barker
NT Wright
Craig Evans
Bart Ehrman
Mike Licona
James White
William Peterson
Elden Epp

I have also watched, numerous debates from NT historians on any of the following topics:

-is the NT historically credible
-was Jesus a real historical person
-is the resurrection historically reliable
-etc, etc.

Here is the deal with critique of the NT.

The majority of the NT scholars and historians are themselves, Christian and this does not always put the greatest emphasis on objectivity, for obvious reasons. Some of the scholars and historians, work for theological institutions, in which their mission statement basically states; we believe the bible is 100% accurate and inspired by God, etc. etc.

So, when we are dealing with deeming a writing to be historically credible, you have to peel back the layers and understand what the historical method is and look at each person's opinion and determine who is using the historical method the way it was intended to be used in reaching their opinions and who is playing fast and loose with the method.

IMO, some of the more conservative Christian scholars and historians, are very lax in applying the historical method to their work.

 

[dms1972]

The gospels were penned by anonymous authors.

The author of the 19th century book Supernatural Religion was also anonymous.

Can you tell me why that is important in accepting what a book contains? What way does anonymity influence your acceptance of a piece of writing?

The originals of the gospels are lost and we only have copies starting 200 years after Jesus died.

Luke the Physician, is the author of the third synoptic Gospel, this has been uniformly supported from decades before this date of 200 years after Jesus died. For instance in the Muratorian Canon, and the works of Ireneaus.