We cannot yet take a position on the current existence of God.

[Gumph]

I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing for sure". Do we know anything "for sure"? Do we have absolute certainty that any of our beliefs are accurate? I doubt it.

Lets say, the same degree of certainty with which you would be prepared to send someone to life in prison. Christianity after all, tends to dictate how one should live their life, often takes up much time in ceremonies, and can occasionally result in war whilst trying to defend the belief. I would suggest you need to be as certain about this as much as you possibly can.

But even then, there's only two choices. Either we choose to trust God in the face of uncertainty or we choose to effectively deny him.

But there is the position before you make the choice. I'm saying that no one has sufficient evidence or reason to make that choice responsibly.

"I'm not sure" isn't a complete answer. No one is sure - Christian or non Christian. Christians say: "I'm not sure but I'm going to live as though this is true and trust God." Non Christians say: "I'm not sure but I'm going to live as though is not true and not trust God." We either life in faith or unbelief.

That has seldom been my experience. Christians seem to be most sure about their belief. Some to the extent that they will die for it.

 

[Tree of Life]

That has seldom been my experience. Christians seem to be most sure about their belief. Some to the extent that they will die for it.

I think the keyword here is "seem". By God's grace we can grow in assurance and certainty in our faith but there is always lingering doubt, unbelief, and uncertainty. Becoming a Christian does not totally seal the deal on these issues.

 

[Tree of Life]

But there is the position before you make the choice. I'm saying that no one has sufficient evidence or reason to make that choice responsibly.

Yet the choice is unavoidable. It cannot NOT be made. So whether or not we can make it responsibly we must make it. Either we recognize Christ as Lord or we do not.

 

[Gumph]

I think the keyword here is "seem". By God's grace we can grow in assurance and certainty in our faith but there is always lingering doubt, unbelief, and uncertainty. Becoming a Christian does not totally seal the deal on these issues.

That fills me with resentment. My childhood Sunday school teachers, chaplins and priests seemed most assured that the existence of God was beyond doubt and that was the message they conveyed, so much so that they insisted I listen to them several times a week and perform many rituals. How can anyone preach and dictate to others to follow this way of life if you are not entirely sure? How can you pass laws and control the lives of others based on something where there is doubt?

Yet the choice is unavoidable. It cannot NOT be made. So whether or not we can make it responsibly we must make it. Either we recognize Christ as Lord or we do not.

Of course it can, not be made. You are saying that choosing no and not choosing have the same result in the eyes of the Christian God. That I suppose is his prerogative if he exists. It still doesn't change the proposal that we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. In addition I put forward that making a decision based on the limited information available makes it no more than a hopeful guess. The prudent next step is to demand more information or wait for more to arrive.

 

[OzSpen]

Neither of them are witnesses, as they weren't even born at the time jesus supposedly roamed the earth.

I did not word my question as I should have. How do you know Josephus and Tacitus are reliable historians? Which criteria of historicity do you use to determine their reliability?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did not word my question as I should have. How do you know Josephus and Tacitus are reliable historians? Which criteria of historicity do you use to determine their reliability?

Again, corroborating evidence.

We know quite a lot about Rome and the Roman empire from archeological artefacts and lots, lots, LOTS, ... of written records.
When new records surface, using all that knowledge quickly can lead to some kind of evaluation in terms of how "fantastical" certain claims in those records are.

How reliable the content is will be entirely dependend on said content, how it "fits into" our current body of knowledge and to what height the stuff that "doesn't fit" can be corroborated.

History isn't an exact science unfortunately.

As for the specific things they wrote about Christianity... I don't see how either passage is any evidence for a historical jezus at all. At best, I feel like those writings are merely an acknowledgement that christians exist and that the authors had a rough idea of what a christian was (and thus, would have known about "jesus" in much the same was as christians would have known about Jupiter and apollo).

It's kind of like someone today writing about The Terminator and then using that in the future as evidence that John Connor was a real person.

 

[OzSpen]

Again, corroborating evidence.

We know quite a lot about Rome and the Roman empire from archeological artefacts and lots, lots, LOTS, ... of written records.
When new records surface, using all that knowledge quickly can lead to some kind of evaluation in terms of how "fantastical" certain claims in those records are.

How reliable the content is will be entirely dependend on said content, how it "fits into" our current body of knowledge and to what height the stuff that "doesn't fit" can be corroborated.

History isn't an exact science unfortunately.

As for the specific things they wrote about Christianity... I don't see how either passage is any evidence for a historical jezus at all. At best, I feel like those writings are merely an acknowledgement that christians exist and that the authors had a rough idea of what a christian was (and thus, would have known about "jesus" in much the same was as christians would have known about Jupiter and apollo).

It's kind of like someone today writing about The Terminator and then using that in the future as evidence that John Connor was a real person.

By your failing to give me the criteria of historicity used by historians, it seems that you do not understand the issue I'm discussing and the criteria for which I seek your statement and assessment.

I'll leave the discussion there as there is no way forward if you are unable to identify criteria of historicity used by historians to establish the reliability of an historical document.

Oz

 

[AV1611VET]

Kindly show me the fault in my thought process.

Sure.

Look how you worded your post:

I make the assumption that the Bible is the only source of information at our disposal which may indicate that the Christian God exists here and now.

I can assure you, the Bible does more than "may indicate that the Christian God exists here and now."

But then, note how you very specifically worded your next sentence:

Seeing a physical world around us simply indicates that he [sic] may have created this world a while back, but does not indicate that he [sic] is still with us.

So the world around us is very definite when it comes to pointing out that God "may have created."

I can tell which side of the bread your butter is on, can't I?

 

[DogmaHunter]

By your failing to give me the criteria of historicity used by historians, it seems that you do not understand the issue I'm discussing and the criteria for which I seek your statement and assessment.

I gave you the criteria: independent and contemporary corroborating evidence.

I'll leave the discussion there as there is no way forward if you are unable to identify criteria of historicity used by historians to establish the reliability of an historical document.

Failing to acknowledge what I said is not going to make what I said go away.

 

[OzSpen]

I gave you the criteria: independent and contemporary corroborating evidence.



Failing to acknowledge what I said is not going to make what I said go away.

That doesn't tell me how you know this evidence is reliable historically? You do not know the criteria of historicity by which you test this supposed independent and contemporary corroborating evidence. How do you know it is reliable?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That doesn't tell me how you know this evidence is reliable historically?

Do you understand what the words "corroborating" and "independent" mean? Because it sounds like you don't.

Let's try with a hypothetical example....
Suppose you find a text in a ruin in Rome that says that a great battle took place in the proximity of what-is-now-called Paris and that it was a clash between the forces of Julius Ceasar and a bunch of Germanic tribes.

Now suppose you go search for, and find, documents from around the same period from Gauls that speak of the same battle, in the same place, with the same involved parties.

Now suppose you go search for, and find, the exact location of this claimed battle and you start digging. You find remnants of both Germanic as well as Roman soldiers with bones showing clear signs of violent deaths and other evidence suggesting a great battle took place there.

See? Multiple lines of independent, contemporary and corroborating evidence. All pointing towards the same conclusion. That's how you increase the degree of reliability of historical claims.

Surely you must understand how that additional evidence only brings more degree of reliability to the original claim in the Roman manuscript, right?

Would you dare to say that this additional evidence doesn't matter, in context of figuring out how reliable the original claims in the text are??


As a small extra, just for the fun of it.... Suppose the original manuscript also mentions that Julius Ceasar followed the battle from the sky, as he was riding a winged horse. Would you consider finding evidence of the battle to be supportive of the idea that Ceasar had a winged horse?

You do not know the criteria of historicity by which you test this supposed independent and contemporary corroborating evidence. How do you know it is reliable?

Reason.

A claim that has independent / comtemporary corroborating evidence, is more reliable then a claim that doesn't.

Seems rather obvious...........



If you disagree with all this, I would be most interested in hearing how YOU would propose to evaluate the reliability of a historical claim.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you understand what the words "corroborating" and "independent" mean? Because it sounds like you don't.

Let's try with a hypothetical example....
Suppose you find a text in a ruin in Rome that says that a great battle took place in the proximity of what-is-now-called Paris and that it was a clash between the forces of Julius Ceasar and a bunch of Germanic tribes.

Now suppose you go search for, and find, documents from around the same period from Gauls that speak of the same battle, in the same place, with the same involved parties.

Now suppose you go search for, and find, the exact location of this claimed battle and you start digging. You find remnants of both Germanic as well as Roman soldiers with bones showing clear signs of violent deaths and other evidence suggesting a great battle took place there.

See? Multiple lines of independent, contemporary and corroborating evidence. All pointing towards the same conclusion. That's how you increase the degree of reliability of historical claims.

Surely you must understand how that additional evidence only brings more degree of reliability to the original claim in the Roman manuscript, right?

Would you dare to say that this additional evidence doesn't matter, in context of figuring out how reliable the original claims in the text are??

Reason.

A claim that has independent / comtemporary corroborating evidence, is more reliable then a claim that doesn't.

Seems rather obvious...........

If you disagree with all this, I would be most interested in hearing how YOU would propose to evaluate the reliability of a historical claim.

You still do not know how to demonstrate that that corroborating evidence is dependable. How will you determine if that evidence is historically reliable, mythology or fanciful invention?

You haven't provided me with criteria to discern the differences so that reliable documentation can be provided. You seem to be running away from admitting that you do not know these criteria.

Oz

 

[DogmaHunter]

You still do not know how to demonstrate that that corroborating evidence is dependable. How will you determine if that evidence is historically reliable, mythology or fanciful invention?

You haven't provided me with criteria to discern the differences so that reliable documentation can be provided. You seem to be running away from admitting that you do not know these criteria.

Oz

First, I gave you the criteria.
Then, I explained with an example that couldn't get any simpler if I tried.

I judge that you aren't interested and just argue for the sake of arguing.

How to determine???

REASON.

If you have text saying a specific thing took place in a specific place, and you then go dig in that place and find what you should find if the event talked about in the text actually took place, and don't find what you shouldn't find, then it's safe to say that the case FOR the event just became stronger.

I have no idea what you find so hard to comprehend about that.

 

[Gumph]

Look how you worded your post:I can assure you, the Bible does more than "may indicate that the Christian God exists here and now."

Would you mind elaborating on how you can assure me?

But then, note how you very specifically worded your next sentence:So the world around us is very definite when it comes to pointing out that God "may have created."

I can tell which side of the bread your butter is on, can't I?

You will have to dumb this down a bit for me please. I think I'm missing the point you are getting at. Sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you mind elaborating on how you can assure me?

Okay.

The Bible indicates that God is here and now:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[Gumph]

The Bible indicates that God is here and now:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Umm, but that only works if we can believe trust and accept the content of the bible without any doubt. I am of the view that there is too much debate about the validity and content of the bible for it to be accepted without some degree of scepticism.

Until that matter is cleared up beyond doubt, we need to find some other form of evidence.

Just because its written in the bible doesn't necessarily make it true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Umm, but that only works if we can believe trust and accept the content of the bible without any doubt.

Whether you believe trust and accept the content of It or not, that's your prerogative.

But saying:

I make the assumption that the Bible is the only source of information at our disposal which may indicate that the Christian God exists here and now.

... is not giving the Bible full credit for saying the Christian God exists here and now.

You want to make it look like the Bible "may indicate" ... and It doesn't.

It "fully indicates".

You're just watering It down to make your point look valid.

 

[Gumph]

Oh, ok, I see what you are getting at. I did not intend to imply that the Bible didn't contain such claims in it. I intended to say that believing such claims was conditional on trusting the bible.

So it would most probably indicate this claim to you if are a Christian, but then it would not do so if you are not. The "may" is determined by your perspective. It certainly doesn't verify for everyone that God exists.

Is that clearer?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, ok, I see what you are getting at. I did not intend to imply that the Bible didn't contain such claims in it. I intended to say that believing such claims was conditional on trusting the bible.

So it would most probably indicate this claim to you if are a Christian, but then it would not do so if you are not. The "may" is determined by your perspective. It certainly doesn't verify for everyone that God exists.

Is that clearer?

Gumph, I believe that science says man came from a common ancestor, even though I don't believe man came from a common ancestor.

So even though I don't believe it, I still realize that science says it.

I don't come on here and say that science "may indicate" that a common ancestor exists.

Science indicates that a common ancestor exists, and can even back it up with evidence.

And even though I believe it is a lie of the Devil, I still give science credit for being able to persuade.

Which is a LOT MORE than you're willing to do with the Bible.

 

[Gumph]

Gumph, I believe that science says man came from a common ancestor, even though I don't believe man came from a common ancestor.

So even though I don't believe it, I still realize that science says it.

I don't come on here and say that science "may indicate" that a common ancestor exists.

Ok, replace "indicate" with "convince me". Is that perhaps clearer?

Science indicates that a common ancestor exists, and can even back it up with evidence.

And even though I believe it is a lie of the Devil, I still give science credit for being able to persuade.

Which is a LOT MORE than you're willing to do with the Bible.

What makes you say I don't give the Bible credit for being able to persuade? Its persuaded billions of people. its very persuasive for some. I am concerned that it so persuasive, because people are trusting its contents without being able to verify them personally.

My understanding is that generally people take the view that they can't be sure, so some take a chance ( have faith) and choose to accept it based on the advice of other men. They then accept everything written in the bible. That seems very dangerous should that assumption of truth turn out to be wrong.

A single source of evidence for something so apparently important and omnipresent raises my suspicions.