How to prove Christianity for those who never heard of it?

[Silmarien]

Paul's testimony may not have been hearsay to him (Paul), but it is hearsay to me!

No, it's not hearsay to you, because firsthand testimony is by definition not hearsay. Situations in which he talks about things other people like Peter or James might have told him are indeed hearsay, which includes what little he bothers to say about Jesus's ministry, but his own claim to have met him after the Resurrection is not, nor are his reports on what was going on in the very early church.

"Hearsay" is a very specific legal term. It does not mean "anything someone says that I didn't experience myself," but rather refers to whether or not they had firsthand knowledge of what they are saying.

 

[gaara4158]

“Right” in regards to “wrong”.

“Order” in regards to “disorder”.

in Christ, Not me

Posting derivative antonyms doesn’t actually answer my question. It’s incoherent gibberish.

1+1=3 is “wrong.” 1+1=2 is “right.” Is a properly solved arithmetic problem “righteous?”

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's only one way. First, establish that miracles occur and are abundant

How would you demonstrate that?

, and that the testimony of the apostles is trustworthy

And how would you demonstrate that?

Once you've done this, demonstrate that their teaching was accurately passed on to the bishops resulting in decrees of Church councils and writings of the Church Fathers and the New Testament

Which church? The catholics? The protenstants? The mormons? The southern baptists? ...?

That's all there is to it

"easy peasy" huh...

Then, interpret all this in the obvious way and come up with the only meaning possible. It's helpful to also point to fulfilled prophecy and supporting archaeology, as well as corroborating evidence from science.

And don't forget to ignore all the contradicting evidence. That helps too. ;-)

 

[Not me]

Posting derivative antonyms doesn’t actually answer my question. It’s incoherent gibberish.

1+1=3 is “wrong.” 1+1=2 is “right.” Is a properly solved arithmetic problem “righteous?”

You wrote;
“When you say “that which is right,” what do you mean? Right with regard to “what?”

You ask me in regards to “what?”
I answered your question. In regards to “wrong”

You also wrote;
“Similarly, what do you mean by “disorder?”—-Same thing here.

But I have a question(s) for you;

Does right and wrong exist?
Also; does order and disorder exist?

in Christ, Not me

 

[DogmaHunter]

Above are three arguments that don't require any reference to the Bible as a knowledge source whatsoever. They use premises based on the latest scientific discoveries, features of our physical world, and intuitions about how our moral intuitions can be grounded.

Not to mention that they are full blown infestations of logical fallacies.

Meanwhile let them try and explane the fine tuning of the universe on chance

Or just acknowledge ignorance concerning phenomena where we are ignorant.

or our moral objective values on atheism

Nobody does this because atheism isn't a worldview that informs morality.

or the origin of the universe from no space, no time, no laws, no matter, no energy.

Indeed, how dare scientists try and explain things, when they can just invent a deity and say "he dun it".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please don't abuse legal standards like this. Hearsay just means something heard secondhand, and while it's not normally admittable in a court of law, this doesn't make it "by definition" untrustworthy.

I beg the differ.
Anecdotal evidence, be it first-hand or whatever-hand, is known to be the lowest form of evidence and the least thrustworthy.

This is why a single piece of objective empirical evidence will instantly trump the "testimoney" of 200 "witnesses".

In the end, testimoney is not evidence. It is just the piling on of claims.
When a "witness" says that he saw such and such do whatever action.... Then he is making a claim about such and such doing whatever action!

Such a testimoney is NOT "evidence" that such and such actuall did whatever action!
It is a CLAIM.

Claims aren't evidence. Piling on even more claims, also isn't evidence!

Just not normally acceptable in the extremely controlled legal environment. If you miss a meeting at work and a friend takes notes for you, those notes are not "by definition" untrustworthy.

Except that they are.
Who guarantees you that his notes are complete? Accurate? That he didn't miss certain important points?

If you have 5 people taking notes independently in said meeting, do you think the end result when comparing those notes, will be exact matches?

I, for one, pretty much guarantee you that you'll find contradictions among the notes on at least one point.

Also Paul's testimony is not hearsay. He may have been hallucinating, but it's very much a firsthand account.

It's anecdotal.

Not to mention that the text you read today are, at best, copies of copies of translations of copies of translations of copies of copies,....

You are not reading the "first hand" account by Paul at all.
And, once more, even if you did - it would still be anecdotal testimoney. It would be, as explained above, a CLAIM - which is not evidence of itself.

It would be a claim in need of evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You wrote;
“When you say “that which is right,” what do you mean? Right with regard to “what?”

You ask me in regards to “what?”
I answered your question. In regards to “wrong”

You also wrote;
“Similarly, what do you mean by “disorder?”—-Same thing here.

But I have a question(s) for you;

Does right and wrong exist?
Also; does order and disorder exist?

in Christ, Not me

"Right and wrong" exist as concepts in our minds.
"right" and "wrong" (in moral terms, which is what I assume you mean) are labels which we slap on behaviour in terms of "approved/prefered" and"disapproved/counterproductive" behaviour.

And we conclude those labels based on what kind of society we want to live in, according to the standards that we ourselves impose on societies.

We are a social species who are dependend on cooperation for our own wellbeing and welfare. So it is not really surprising that engrained in us, is an instinctive need to acknowledge things like solidarity, empathy etc and put a certain amount of importance on that.

I don't require any supernatural things, to explain and account for such social organization.

Not really sure what "order and disorder" has to do with this though.

 

[gaara4158]

You wrote;
“When you say “that which is right,” what do you mean? Right with regard to “what?”

You ask me in regards to “what?”
I answered your question. In regards to “wrong”

You also wrote;
“Similarly, what do you mean by “disorder?”—-Same thing here.

But I have a question(s) for you;

Does right and wrong exist?
Also; does order and disorder exist?

in Christ, Not me

You don’t understand my objection. There’s no such thing as “right” and “wrong” by itself. These are adjectives we assign to things based on a set of rules or standards. 1+1=2 is “right” in terms of arithmetic because the rules of arithmetic define it as such. Murder is “wrong” in terms of morality because of the moral standards we as a society have adopted. There is no simple essence of “right” or “wrong” out there.

 

[Not me]

"Right and wrong" exist as concepts in our minds.
"right" and "wrong" (in moral terms, which is what I assume you mean) are labels which we slap on behaviour in terms of "approved/prefered" and"disapproved/counterproductive" behaviour.

And we conclude those labels based on what kind of society we want to live in, according to the standards that we ourselves impose on societies.

We are a social species who are dependend on cooperation for our own wellbeing and welfare. So it is not really surprising that engrained in us, is an instinctive need to acknowledge things like solidarity, empathy etc and put a certain amount of importance on that.

I don't require any supernatural things, to explain and account for such social organization.

Not really sure what "order and disorder" has to do with this though.

Until you see/realize that that “right and wrong exist” (i.e. righteousness and unrighteousness) exist as they are in themselves, you will continue not to understand my meaning. My prayers are that you will have an “increase in Christ” that you might grow in your understanding.

in Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

You don’t understand my objection. There’s no such thing as “right” and “wrong” by itself. These are adjectives we assign to things based on a set of rules or standards. 1+1=2 is “right” in terms of arithmetic because the rules of arithmetic define it as such. Murder is “wrong” in terms of morality because of the moral standards we as a society have adopted. There is no simple essence of “right” or “wrong” out there.

Until you see/realize that that “right and wrong exist” (i.e. righteousness and unrighteousness) “DO” exist as they are in themselves, you will continue not to understand my meaning. My prayers are that you will have an “increase in Christ” that you might grow in your understanding.

in Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

Until you see/realize that that “right and wrong exist” (i.e. righteousness and unrighteousness) “DO” exist as they are in themselves, you will continue not to understand my meaning. My prayers are that you will have an “increase in Christ” that you might grow in your understanding.

in Christ, Not me

I’ve explained what I mean when I say that they can’t exist on their own. You’ve still not explained how you think they can.

 

[Not me]

I’ve explained what I mean when I say that they can’t exist on their own. You’ve still not explained how you think they can.

Would one and one still be two if God didn’t exist?

Yes, there would just be no expression or manifestation of it. It is eternal, something that God Himself can not change. For it is truth.
Gods creating power is the ability to bring truth to manifestation.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

Would one and one still be two if God didn’t exist?

Yes, there would just be no expression or manifestation of it. It is eternal, something that God Himself can not change. For it is truth.
Gods creating power is the ability to bring truth to manifestation.

Much love in Christ, Not me

No, it is tautological. 2 is a concept we invented to describe what you have when you have 1 and 1 of something. It’s language, not some ethereal truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Until you see/realize that that “right and wrong exist” (i.e. righteousness and unrighteousness) exist as they are in themselves

That makes no sense.
Imagine humans going extinct.

There'ld be no more right or wrong, because there wouldn't be any moral agents anymore to give any meaning to those labels.

Morality does not exist externally to humans.
Morality is clearly a human construct.

My prayers are that you will have an “increase in Christ” that you might grow in your understanding.

Unless "praying" has the ability to alter facts, I don't see it making any difference.


Look, I explained my reasoning. Either you have something to add to the discussion or you don't...

But just making bare claims like you do here, is not going to accomplish much.

 

[Not me]

No, it is tautological. 2 is a concept we invented to describe what you have when you have 1 and 1 of something. It’s language, not some ethereal truth.

Sorry my friend but you are incorrect. Just like up will always be up in relation to down. One and one will always be two. For both of these are “truth”

And “truth” as it is in itself “DOES” exist.

Much love and prayers, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

Sorry my friend but you are incorrect. Just like up will always be up in relation to down. One and one will always be two. For both of these are “truth”

And “truth” as it is in itself “DOES” exist.

Much love and prayers, Not me

You’re repeating yourself, not explaining yourself. You need to explain yourself. Up and down is another dichotomy that relies on a subjective orientation. Which way is “up” in space?

 

[Not me]

That makes no sense.
Imagine humans going extinct.

There'ld be no more right or wrong, because there wouldn't be any moral agents anymore to give any meaning to those labels.

Morality does not exist externally to humans.
Morality is clearly a human construct.



Unless "praying" has the ability to alter facts, I don't see it making any difference.


Look, I explained my reasoning. Either you have something to add to the discussion or you don't...

But just making bare claims like you do here, is not going to accomplish much.

It does make sense if someone chooses to see. For human reasoning will never understand reality, for reality is spiritual.

What prayer does is to open the eyes for those that wish to see.

in Christ, Not me

 

[KCfromNC]

Nobody does this because atheism isn't a worldview that informs morality.

Plus the issue that no one can demonstrate that objective morality actually exists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does make sense if someone chooses to see

I don't "choose" what I see or don't see.
Just like I don't "choose" what I believe or don't believe.

For human reasoning will never understand reality, for reality is spiritual.

That doesn't seem to mean anything.

What prayer does is to open the eyes for those that wish to see.

If you say so.

In the meantime, do you have an actual argument as to why you think that morality exists externally to humans, or will you just leave it at the bare (religiously motivated) claim?

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry my friend but you are incorrect. Just like up will always be up in relation to down. One and one will always be two.

That's simply false. 1 and 1 is 10, at least in some systems. 1 and 1 is 1 in others. It all depends on which definitions you make up for 1, 0, "and" and "is".