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

[Gumph]

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

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Due to this doubt and inability to verify, I propose that the default position should be that "We do not know for sure", and that those that say there is a God and those that say there is no God, need to justify their position.

Kindly show me the fault in my thought process.

 

[OzSpen]

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Which criteria of history are you using to dismiss the Bible's contents as being incapable of verifying whether they are correct and true?

 

[Gumph]

I'm not sure what is meant by "criteria of history". However if you feel that the super natural acts mentioned in the bible can be verified, then I would be most interested in that information.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not a single historian denies Jesus existed based upon historical evidence. They simply dismiss the miracles listed in those historical observations simply because they do not believe in miracles. So they agree by the same sources that list the miracles that Jesus existed - then deny the miracles attributed to Jesus in those same sources. For no other reason than they do not want to accept those declaration and eyewitness accounts of the miracles while accepting the same eye witness accounts and declarations of his existence. Sounds a bit like picking and choosing what are facts or not to me. The sources are reliable enough to show he existed but unreliable enough to show miracles occurred???

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure what is meant by "criteria of history". However if you feel that the super natural acts mentioned in the bible can be verified, then I would be most interested in that information.

How do you determine if something is historical? Which criteria do you use to verify historicity?

 

[OzSpen]

Not a single historian denies Jesus existed based upon historical evidence. They simply dismiss the miracles listed in those historical observations simply because they do not believe in miracles. So they agree by the same sources that list the miracles that Jesus existed - then deny the miracles attributed to Jesus in those same sources. For no other reason than they do not want to accept those declaration and eyewitness accounts of the miracles while accepting the same eye witness accounts and declarations of his existence. Sounds a bit like picking and choosing what are facts or not to me. The sources are reliable enough to show he existed but unreliable enough to show miracles occurred???

Have you examined ALL historians to be able to make your statement? 'Not a single historian denies Jesus existed based upon historical evidence'.

Would you be so kind as to provide some links to the evidence to which you refer? Who are these historians who accept that Jesus existed but deny his miracles? What are some examples of the statements they make about rejecting miracles attributed to Jesus?

See the article, 'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Due to this doubt and inability to verify, I propose that the default position should be that "We do not know for sure", and that those that say there is a God and those that say there is no God, need to justify their position.

Kindly show me the fault in my thought process.

This is inconsistent with how you live otherwise. You don't have 100% certainty that the plane you board has been serviced properly, yet you suspend yourself 30,000 ft into the air without knowing this information.

You marry without knowing your spouse (you don't know EVERYTHING). You also don't know who they will become in 5 or 10 years.

You hire an employee with limited knowledge, but you aren't really certain that you've hired the right person for 3-4 months, or longer.

In fact this last example is just how I would ask one to accept the claims of Christ. There is much evidence that He is who He says He is and that He's done what He says He's done, but you won't have the kind of certainty you desire until you act based on the evidence.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Much of the bible is not historical. Don't equate "God exists" with "the bible is essentially historical". There may be reasons for thinking that God exists, but these reasons are ultimately not that the bible is a good source of history, it's actually not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you determine if something is historical? Which criteria do you use to verify historicity?

Additional contemporary and independent, corroborating evidence is a good place to start.

It also kind of goes together with the content of the claims.
The more fantastical the claims, the more additional evidence will be required.

The stories of the bible have very very little such additional extra-biblical evidence, if at all.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Additional contemporary and independent, corroborating evidence is a good place to start.

It also kind of goes together with the content of the claims.
The more fantastical the claims, the more additional evidence will be required.

The stories of the bible have very very little such additional extra-biblical evidence, if at all.

Yes, because many of the stories aren't historical. Biblical scholars and theologians have known this for quite some time...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Due to this doubt and inability to verify, I propose that the default position should be that "We do not know for sure", and that those that say there is a God and those that say there is no God, need to justify their position.

Kindly show me the fault in my thought process.

Atheists don't, or at least shouldn't, claim there's no God. We simply claim there's no case for one. No evidence or argument is required for this position. The Christian position, however, ultimately leans on the crutch of faith. If there was a satisfactory argument, faith would not be necessary; therefore they lack a convincing argument, and this is essentially unanimously agreed upon, so Christianity is by default an unreasonable and unjustified position.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Atheists don't, or at least shouldn't, claim there's no God. We simply claim there's no case for one. No evidence or argument is required for this position. The Christian position, however, ultimately leans on the crutch of faith. If there was a satisfactory argument, faith would not be necessary; therefore they lack a convincing argument, and this is essentially unanimously agreed upon, so Christianity is by default an unreasonable and unjustified position.

That's not essentially the case. I find, with some modification, the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism, formulated by Alvin Plantinga to be somewhat convincing. Human beings evolved, there's no question, however, the evolutionary trajectories are non-teleological which means that there is no reason to suppose that humans evolved in order for our higher brain functions to be able to produce the concept of truth. If this is the case then there's no reason to assume that the concepts humans have developed, including naturalism, are true. At the very least this dispels with the assumption of atheism.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's not essentially the case. I find, with some modification, the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism, formulated by Alvin Plantinga to be somewhat convincing. Human beings evolved, there's no question, however, the evolutionary trajectories are non-teleological which means that there is no reason to suppose that humans evolved in order for our higher brain functions to be able to produce the concept of truth. If this is the case then there's no reason to assume that the concepts humans have developed, including naturalism, are true. At the very least this dispels with the assumption of atheism.

Plantinga's argument is absurd. If our brains did not develop the ability to think abstractly, then why are we able to make machines that perform logic? What a wonderful coincidence.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Plantinga's argument is absurd. If our brains did not develop the ability to think abstractly, then why are we able to make machines that perform logic? What a wonderful coincidence.

That's playing precisely in the hands of Plantinga though... We shouldn't be able to do it within the naturalistic framework. There's no reason for humans to develop high enough cognitive functions so as to ascertain the concept of "truth". Therefore naturalism is probably false.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has said basically the same thing in Mind and Cosmos.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We shouldn't be able to do it within the naturalistic framework.

Justification?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Justification?

You know... Sometimes when I talk to you I get the feeling that you're a teenager who's read Dawkins and Hitchens and not much else. I would imagine that an atheist who's been through college would have heard of and studied Plantinga's EAAN.

 

[Gumph]

Not a single historian denies Jesus existed based upon historical evidence. They simply dismiss the miracles listed in those historical observations simply because they do not believe in miracles. So they agree by the same sources that list the miracles that Jesus existed - then deny the miracles attributed to Jesus in those same sources. For no other reason than they do not want to accept those declaration and eyewitness accounts of the miracles while accepting the same eye witness accounts and declarations of his existence. Sounds a bit like picking and choosing what are facts or not to me. The sources are reliable enough to show he existed but unreliable enough to show miracles occurred???

I beg to differ with that rather sweeping statement. Firstly, the historical evidence is somewhat sparse and there are indeed historians who feel that the Jesus described in the Bible did not exist. I think however that most would accept that its possible that there was a guy who was a carpenter and was called Jesus who lived in Nazereth about 2000 years ago and who then went on to become one of many claiming to be the next messiah during those times.

Accepting the above based purely on probability and reasonableness is a giant leap away from accepting apparent witness accounts of miracles from decades earlier. That's not picking and choosing. That's requiring stronger evidence for outrageous claims. Evidence of a man called Jesus living in those parts is of little interest to anyone. Evidence of a supernatural being called Jesus at that time is what we want.

 

[Gumph]

This is inconsistent with how you live otherwise. You don't have 100% certainty that the plane you board has been serviced properly, yet you suspend yourself 30,000 ft into the air without knowing this information.

You marry without knowing your spouse (you don't know EVERYTHING). You also don't know who they will become in 5 or 10 years.

You hire an employee with limited knowledge, but you aren't really certain that you've hired the right person for 3-4 months, or longer.

In fact this last example is just how I would ask one to accept the claims of Christ. There is much evidence that He is who He says He is and that He's done what He says He's done, but you won't have the kind of certainty you desire until you act based on the evidence.

Its not inconsistent. I can see others boarding planes and them returning with a high degree or probability. I can test the theory behind flight if I really wish to spend the time. I can touch and see the physical plane. I can do none of these with the Christian God.

Similarly I can touch and see my spouse. I can speak to her, she speaks back. I know only a little about her, but I'm pretty confident she is in fact there. I'm not so sure about a God.

Same goes for the employee.

Please do elaborate on this evidence you write about. I have only been able to find the Bible being put forward as so called evidence.

 

[Gumph]

Much of the bible is not historical. Don't equate "God exists" with "the bible is essentially historical". There may be reasons for thinking that God exists, but these reasons are ultimately not that the bible is a good source of history, it's actually not.

What then, are these reasons for thinking that God exists?

 

[Gumph]

Additional contemporary and independent, corroborating evidence is a good place to start.

Thank you for helping me out there. Yes I think that sounds reasonable.
I would also like to add that if there is someway that I could verify something personally, then that would be a major plus.