What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[bhsmte]

If you had said disputed, I would agree with you. But there are a large number of "legit" NT historians who find the resurrection probable. Unless, of course, you define "legit" as being those who do not.

When it comes to people rising from the dead, the least likely explanation, is a miracle and all sorts of other (more likely explanations) will be given more weight.

I have already agreed with you on this. But no matter how much weight is given to them; if they do not stand up to scrutiny they must be rejected.

God Bless
Jax

When i say legit, i am referring to historians who use the historical method, which is what historians are supposed to do. Historians are tasked wih determining what likely happened in the past and since miracles by nature, are the least probable explanation of events, no historian uses the historical method to verify the ressurrection, they may believe it on faith though.

 

[jax5434]

When i say legit, i am referring to historians who use the historical metho

So am I.

Historians are tasked wih determining what likely happened in the past and since miracles by nature, are the least probable explanation of events,

I have already dealt with this. Could you at least engage with my response rather than just repeating the same mantra?

no historian uses the historical method to verify the ressurrection, they may believe it on faith though.

Nor can they "verify" the deeds of any of the other people I mentioned. which is why I used the word probable.

God Bless
Jax

 

[bhsmte]

So am I.



I have already dealt with this. Could you at least engage with my response rather than just repeating the same mantra?



Nor can they "verify" the deeds of any of the other people I mentioned. which is why I used the word probable.

God Bless
Jax

How does a historian, using the historical method, determine the reserrection was probable. And when you are talking about 2000 yar old text, with unknown authors, no original texts available, even the existance of jesus and what he said is definitive, but q historian can determine certain things likely are credible.

 

[jax5434]

How does a historian, using the historical method, determine the reserrection was probable.

Once again. by using the exact same methods they use to determine other ancient events are probable. If those methods lead to a conclusion that you do not care for; that does not invalidate the methods or the results.

And when you are talking about 2000 yar old text, with unknown authors, no original texts available,

The authors are known, your assertion to the contrary.
There are no original copies of the illiad or odyssey either. The earliest manuscript we have of either dates to nearly 900 years after the time Homer wrote them.
Compare that to about a 250 year gap for Jesus.
(I am talking about complete manuscripts. Thru fragments and quotes cited by the earlier church fathers we can go back to the early 2nd century}

even the existance of jesus and what he said is definitive, but q historian can determine certain things likely are credible.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But historians routinely determine some people and events are credible based on evidence more sparse and circumstantial than the events surrounding the resurrection.

Non-believers engage in a kind of "special pleading" . They say that the methods they deem acceptable to establish pretty much all of ancient history, are insufficient to deal with the resurrection. Why is that? And please, we have already dealt with the "extraordinay claims" thing.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ana the Ist]

Once again. by using the exact same methods they use to determine other ancient events are probable. If those methods lead to a conclusion that you do not care for; that does not invalidate the methods or the results.



The authors are known, your assertion to the contrary.
There are no original copies of the illiad or odyssey either. The earliest manuscript we have of either dates to nearly 900 years after the time Homer wrote them.
Compare that to about a 250 year gap for Jesus.
(I am talking about complete manuscripts. Thru fragments and quotes cited by the earlier church fathers we can go back to the early 2nd century}



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But historians routinely determine some people and events are credible based on evidence more sparse and circumstantial than the events surrounding the resurrection.

Non-believers engage in a kind of "special pleading" . They say that the methods they deem acceptable to establish pretty much all of ancient history, are insufficient to deal with the resurrection. Why is that? And please, we have already dealt with the "extraordinay claims" thing.

God Bless
Jax

Lol we don't have "evidence more sparse and circumstantial" than the events surrounding the resurrection. We literally have no evidence for it and serious historians don't consider it true. Find me one who does and then get his opinions on the historicity of the events surrounding Buddha under the bodi tree. My guess is that suddenly the weight of evidence falls short.

 

[bhsmte]

Once again. by using the exact same methods they use to determine other ancient events are probable. If those methods lead to a conclusion that you do not care for; that does not invalidate the methods or the results.

Name me a NT historian, who states, the resurrection is a historical fact.

The authors are known, your assertion to the contrary.
There are no original copies of the illiad or odyssey either. The earliest manuscript we have of either dates to nearly 900 years after the time Homer wrote them.
Compare that to about a 250 year gap for Jesus.
(I am talking about complete manuscripts. Thru fragments and quotes cited by the earlier church fathers we can go back to the early 2nd century}

Who are the authors of the four gospels that discuss Jesus' life?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But historians routinely determine some people and events are credible based on evidence more sparse and circumstantial than the events surrounding the resurrection.

Non-believers engage in a kind of "special pleading" . They say that the methods they deem acceptable to establish pretty much all of ancient history, are insufficient to deal with the resurrection. Why is that? And please, we have already dealt with the "extraordinay claims" thing.

God Bless
Jax

Quite the contrary, Christians look to "special pleading' when it comes to determining the credibility of the NT, from a historical perspective. Hence, why a true objective critique of the NT (from a historical perspective) has been so difficult to achieve or raises so many feathers, because the bulk of NT historians are Christian, with some of them being evangelical Christians.

Sort of like, having the tobacco company scientists make a determination as to whether smoking is bad for you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suppose the glib reply would be "it doesn't surprise me that an Athiest would reject evidence of God found in the bible". However that is probably counter productive. Of all the faiths you mentioned only Christianity is based on a publicly viewed historical event. It is not rooted in self-proclaimed visions, philosophies, or mystical experiences. It is independent of what you or I might like to believe. Disprove the event and you disprove the faith. Its that simple.

There is little doubt that Mohammed was a real historical person, and he claimed that God spoke directly to him. The Quran was directly dictated from God by Mohammed. Do you accept this as true?

Haile Selassie was a very real ruler in Ethiopia, and Rastafarians claim that he was God incarnate, a messiah. Does the very real existence of Haile Selassie prove the claims of divinity? If you aren't Rastafarian, obviously not.

Even if we grant that Jesus was a real historical person, that doesn't raise Jesus above the level of any other messiahs or speakers for deities throughout history, most of which you reject out of hand.

Obviously, humans making claims of divine inspiration are only proof that humans can make these claims.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. Look at it this way. Islam is based on a vision that Mohammed claimed he had in the absence of any witnesses. Joseph Smith (LDS) made the same claim. Manchi also had a vision. Buddhism and Hinduism are rooted in mystical experience that can not be verified.

Jesus rising from the dead cannot be verified either.

Christianity is anchored to a specific moment in secular history like no other faith. You can not disprove someones claim to a vision. You can not disprove mystical experience. We claim that the resurrection was a historical event. Just like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, Alexander the Great conquering the known world, Homer writing the Iliad and the Odyssey, The existence of Plato ect. Further we claim that the same kinds of historical evidence used to prove these peoples existence can be used to prove the ressurrection to the same degree of probability.

The claim of someone conquering lands and exploring seas cannot be compared to a claim of someone rising from the dead.

Christianity is based on a falsifiable claim. That a specific event occured at a specific time and place in history. Disproving this one claim would cause our entire faith to collapse. You can not say that of any other faith known to me.

So how does this make your claim any more credible than the others? Just because you can present a scenario where your religion could be proven false doesn’t make it any more true!

Further we ask people to investigate this claim for themselves without special pleading. We say that the ressurrection meets the same historical criteria used to validate other ancient historical events.

God Bless
Jax

Again; people conquer lands and explore seas all the time! Nobody has ever raised from the dead; only someone who already believes could see these claims as equal

Ken

 

[JGG]

I love this analogy! If Shakespeare really wanted MacBeth to believe in him, he would have written him that way. He could just write a line where MacBeth says "Hey, I just realized that Shamespeare wrote me into existence." If he had wanted them to be perfectly moral, he would write them without moral flaws. On the other hand, if Shakespeare didn't want or care whether his creations believed in him then presumably he would write them without knowledge of Shakespeare. It also raises interesting questions regarding last Thursdayism, and I suppose next Thursdayism.

I have learned much about the nature of God here.

 

[jax5434]

Lol we don't have "evidence more sparse and circumstantial" than the events surrounding the resurrection. We literally have no evidence for it and serious historians don't consider it true. Find me one who does and then get his opinions on the historicity of the events surrounding Buddha under the bodi tree. My guess is that suddenly the weight of evidence falls short.

Had you bothered to actually read my posts you would know that i have never used the word "true". I admitted quite honestly that I could not "Prove" the resurrection. I do say that using the standard tools of historical research we can establish it as being as probable as any other ancient historical event. And a simple google search will show that there are serious historians who do find it at least credible if not probable. Unless of course you consider as "serious historians" only the ones who agree with you. Something I find to be the case quite often.

So my friend, why don't you tell me what historical evidence you have for the existence of Homer (I assume you believe he existed) and what historical evidence you have for him actually writing the Illiad.

And then we'll compare.

God Bless
Jax

 

[jax5434]

Jesus rising from the dead cannot be verified either.

Again you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I have never said it can be verified. I do say that using the same tools as used for all other historical events a case can be made that it as possible/probable as any other ancient event.

The claim of someone conquering lands and exploring seas cannot be compared to a claim of someone rising from the dead.

Perhaps not. But the evidence for each can and should be tested by the same criteria.

So how does this make your claim any more credible than the others? Just because you can present a scenario where your religion could be proven false doesn’t make it any more true!

Interesting. Tell that to an evolutionist, or physicist that falsifiability does not matter . You can not test the truth of any theory unless there is a way it could possibly be proven wrong. Christianity is the only faith that could, beyond a doubt, be proven wrong( falsified). The claim we make is as testable as any other ancient event, no other religion can say that.

Again; people conquer lands and explore seas all the time! Nobody has ever raised from the dead; only someone who already believes could see these claims as equal

We are not discussing claims at the moment. We are discussing evidence. Not at all the same thing.

God Bless
Jax

 

[jax5434]

To everyone else who has posted me on this issue. There are 3 or 4 of you and only one of me. I am not ignoring your posts but my time is limited so I have narrowed my responses to just a few people.

When we conclude this discussion I will be more than happy to debate some of the other issues you have raised. But for now it's not possible to do so.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ana the Ist]

Had you bothered to actually read my posts you would know that i have never used the word "true". I admitted quite honestly that I could not "Prove" the resurrection. I do say that using the standard tools of historical research we can establish it as being as probable as any other ancient historical event.

You're actually way way off here, and my guess is you don't understand historical methods at all. Any other ancient historical event? How about Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon?

Even if we get rid of Caesar's own writings of the event, even if we eliminate the writings of his enemies, even if we eliminate any contemporary accounts, even if we eliminate non-contemporary accounts, even if we eliminate any other possible physical evidence which may have celebrated the event.... we can still be about 99.999% sure it still happened.

Why is this?

Easy, it's almost impossible to explain the rest of Roman history without it. The same cannot be said of the resurrection. We don't have any of the evidence that we have for the crossing of the Rubicon except for "non contemporary" accounts... and those are all from believers, so they already fail the "smell test". Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that christianity couldn't have happened without the resurrection at all, because quite frankly, it did. It didn't actually spring up until well after anyone who could've witnessed the resurrection was dead.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but sometimes it's better to just rip the band-aid off.

 

[jax5434]

You're actually way way off here, and my guess is you don't understand historical methods at all.

One of us doesn't at least.

Any other ancient historical event? How about Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon?

I am so glad you mentioned that. I thought you might come up with a tough one.

Even if we get rid of Caesar's own writings of the event

,
One of the rules of historical method is that you must cite your sources. I really must ask you for one on this. Meaning where Caesar wrote it , not where you heard it from

even if we eliminate the writings of his enemies,

I assume you mean Cicero here. Again I really must have a citation for this. IE where does Cicero identify himself as an enemy of Caesar? Or from which of his writings can you deduce it?
If it's not Cicero I still need a citation

even if we eliminate any contemporary accounts,

What contemporary accounts? There are 4 sources for the Rubicon account. All of them by writers 3 generations removed from the event and all of them based on only one alleged eye witness account, which we no longer have in any form.

even if we eliminate non-contemporary accounts,

We can if you would like, but that's all you have.

even if we eliminate any other possible physical evidence which may have celebrated the event....

No need. I'm perfectly willing to admit it exists.

we can still be about 99.999% sure it still happened.

Is that all?

Why is this?

I'm dying to know. (well not really. Just trying to build the suspense.)

Its almost impossible to explain the rest of Roman history without it

Quite true but so what? We are comparing evidence for the event. Not what impact the event had on future events. (Unless of course you want to. In which case I would point out that the resurrrection had a much larger impact on history in general and even on the Roman empire.)

The same cannot be said of the resurrection.

That's true. Caesar crossing the Rubicon is not at all necessary to the resurrection

We don't have any of the evidence that we have for the crossing of the Rubicon except for "non contemporary" accounts..

.
They are at least as and, probably, more contemporary than the Rubicon accounts

and those are all from believers, so they already fail the "smell test".

If i were asking you to accept it on faith, you might have a point. But I'm not

Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that Christianity couldn't have happened without the resurrection at all,

All kinds of reason actually.

because quite frankly, it did.

You really must learn to substantiate your assertions

It didn't actually spring up until well after anyone who could've witnessed the resurrection was dead.

Do you ever bother to look at sources contrary to what you want to believe? Because if you had you never make such a foolish statement.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you,

Yep, you are the very first one. (Again not really, just giving you an ego
boost)

but sometimes it's better to just rip the band-aid off.

You might be right but it aint happened yet.
God Bless
Jax

 

[Ana the Ist]

All kinds of reason actually.

Lol I'm not going to link citations to a guy who asks others to "google" for historians who verify his claims. Sorry...you get what you give.

But at least you see the point that we can't really explain the rest of Roman history without the crossing.

Since you insist there are all sorts of reasons we cannot explain christianity without the resurrection....give me one.

 

[jax5434]

Lol I'm not going to link citations to a guy who asks others to "google" for historians who verify his claims. Sorry...you get what you give.

Not providing citations speaks volumes about your case.And I don't believe I ever ask you to google anything. I was simply pointing out that at least knowing the other sides position would give more credibility.

But at least you see the point that we can't really explain the rest of Roman history without the crossing.

Actually the more I thought about this morning I realized I was wrong about that. The Historical/Physical necessity was that Caesar place an Army in Italy. There were ways He could have done that with out crossing the Rubicon.

Since you insist there are all sorts of reasons we cannot explain christianity without the resurrection....give me one.

Since you can not provide citations for your first two points I presume you are conceding them. Are you conceding then the other points as well?
1. That you really do not have contemporary writings of the event?
2. That your non-contemporary writings are even further removed from the actual event than those for the resurrection?

Since you insist there are all sorts of reasons we cannot explain christianity without the resurrection....give me one.

I could do that but it is off topic for this thread.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Received]

Evidence is a fact or argument that positively asserts the existence of something. In short, what about reality would be different between a god and no god? Does any predictable evidence occur? What about facts that overcome possible contradictions between reality and a god hypothesis? Stuff along that line is evidence.

Which is exactly why there isn't a lack of evidence for God, but that God is incommensurable with evidence.

 

[JGG]

Which is exactly why there isn't a lack of evidence for God, but that God is incommensurable with evidence.

I'm sorry, is God incommensurable with evidence in a scientific or mathematical sense?

 

[Johnnz]

Answer to question - Jesus.

John
NZ

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry, is God incommensurable with evidence in a scientific or mathematical sense?

I always took that as; I believe in a God and there isn't really any evidence he exists, so he must be incommensurable with evidence.