What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Ana the Ist]

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

God Bless
Jax

Actually, my continuing a discussion of Caesar at the Rubicon would be off topic for this thread. I'll say this though, despite the records being further removed from the event than the resurrection...those events were transcribed into a book and passed on. Your resurrection story, unfortunately, was passed by word of mouth for decades before being transcribed. Nolegitimate historian considers the two methods equally valid... one is horribly suspect, especially in light of its claims.

Since you won't be giving an example, I'll just assume you have none.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.



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



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.



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

God Bless
Jax

One of the problems with Jesus is the story of him isn’t consistent. According to some he claimed he was God’s son; according to others he was a prophet who never made such claims. According to some he was crucified and rose from the dead 3 days later; according to others; he was taken directly to heaven by God.
The story of Julius Caesar (for example) is consistent. If some people claimed he was a Roman leader, and others claimed he was a Greek leader; or is some people claimed he died via Assassination while others claimed he died of old age; I would have my doubts about Julius Caesar as well.

Another problem with the story of Jesus is because as the saying goes… “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Now I know you dislike that phrase but it is true! It is much easier to believe a Roman Ruler conquered much of the world during the Roman Empire than to believe a religious leader preformed acts outside the laws of nature, and rose from the dead after being executed.

Also weather the story of Caesar is true or false isn’t going to have an effect on my life. Weather the story of Jesus is true or false will have significant effect on my life. If you expect me to believe something that is going to change my life in a way I find more complicated; you need to bring more to the table than you would if you expect me to believe something that has no effect on my life at all other than what I might learn in a history class.

Also to believe the biblical story of Jesus you have to believe some of the old stories of the Old Testament that sounds unrealistic; like a man getting swallowed by a whale/fish and sits in the belly of this animal for 3 days without any air supply. Or the unrealistic story of Adam and Eve etc. to believe the bible story of Jesus you have to believe a lot of other stuff as well! Believing Caesar’s story doesn’t require this. That is why I find it unrealistic to expect the same criteria required to believe Caesar is all that is needed to believe the Bible story of Jesus.

Ken

 

[Johnnz]

Ken,

I'm nor sure you have a good grasp of modern biblical interpretation that includes consideration of genre, style, authorial purposes and immediate context. Without a sound underlying framework your position may differ little from a person, citing some inadequate research, concluding that the scientific method itself is faulty.

John
NZ

 

[jax5434]

Actually, my continuing a discussion of Caesar at the Rubicon would be off topic for this thread.

We were comparing the relative strength of the evidence for two historical events. One of which would be evidence for God interacting in history thereby proving his existence. The point being that evidence sufficient to establish one event should be sufficient to establish the other. One event is the resurrection which would be evidence for God. Which was the Topic. (By the way I have no doubt that Caesar did cross the Rubicon.)

I'll say this though, despite the records being further removed from the event than the resurrection

..
I am glad you have accepted that as true. Many Athiest never concede a point even in the face of factual error.

.those events were transcribed into a book and passed on. Your resurrection story, unfortunately, was passed by word of mouth for decades before being transcribed.

. I believe that the authors of the Gospels were exactly who they claimed to be. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John two of whom were of the twelve Apostles, one( John Mark) was the scribe of Peter whose Gospel he wrote, and Luke who accompanied the apostle Paul and who used primary sources for his Gospel. And I believe that authorship has been established as well as the authorship of any ancient document. Again I want you to know that I am making a secular historical claim, not a faith based claim.

Nolegitimate historian considers the two methods equally valid..

This is not a completely accurate statement but its not relevant since the Gospels were not derived from Oral tradition.

one is horribly suspect, especially in light of its claims.

1. The Gospels do not rely on an Oral Tradition.
2. It doesn't matter what the claim is. An extraordinary claim only requires that it be more likely than any other explanation.

Since you won't be giving an example, I'll just assume you have none.

The arguments are dependent upon when you date the gospels and who the authors are. But since I believe an early date for the Gospels and the authorship as I have stated above I would offer this. Human Nature.The church exists only because of the resurrection otherwise you have to explain why the writers would make up a story that did not bring them any financial rewards, brought them a great deal suffering and one that they were all eventually died for (except for one). The simplest explanation is that they taught what they had actually seen and heard. Without the resurrection there would have been no gospels and without the gospels there is no church

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken,

I'm nor sure you have a good grasp of modern biblical interpretation that includes consideration of genre, style, authorial purposes and immediate context. Without a sound underlying framework your position may differ little from a person, citing some inadequate research, concluding that the scientific method itself is faulty.

John
NZ

Why do you say that? What did I say that you disagree with?

Ken

 

[jax5434]

One of the problems with Jesus is the story of him isn’t consistent. According to some he claimed he was God’s son; according to others he was a prophet who never made such claims. According to some he was crucified and rose from the dead 3 days later; according to others; he was taken directly to heaven by God.

1.As Johnzz said need to get a better grasp concerning how to evaluate sources.
2. As a Christian I am willing only to defend the New Testament accounts of Jesus as being historically true and accurate.

The story of Julius Caesar (for example) is consistent. If some people claimed he was a Roman leader, and others claimed he was a Greek leader; or is some people claimed he died via Assassination while others claimed he died of old age; I would have my doubts about Julius Caesar as well.

That would be valid only if you believed all those writings and claims about Caesar were equally valid and accurate. Textual Criticism is a highly developed science. There are ways to differentiate between sound and unsound text.

Another problem with the story of Jesus is because as the saying goes… “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Now I know you dislike that phrase but it is true!

Its absolutely not true.
Look at it this way. To believe that all time and space is the result of a huge explosion 14.5 billion years ago is an extraordinary claim. But the evidence we have says that that is the most likely explanation. There really isn't any "extraordinary" (other than ordinary) evidence or science involved.

It is much easier to believe a Roman Ruler conquered much of the world during the Roman Empire than to believe a religious leader preformed acts outside the laws of nature, and rose from the dead after being executed.

I have no doubt that is true for you. But this about what the evidence supports, not what is easiest to believe. If the evidence for each event , using the same standard measurement, is equally good you must either deny both or accept both.

Also weather the story of Caesar is true or false isn’t going to have an effect on my life

.
Then you understand the importance of these discussions

Weather the story of Jesus is true or false will have significant effect on my life.

And your afterlife.

If you expect me to believe something that is going to change my life

I don't expect you to believe it. (Though I very much hope you do at some point before it is to late) I only hope to show you that there are no overwhelming intellectual reasons to reject it.

in a way I find more complicated;

Truth does not depend in the degree of difficulty

you need to bring more to the table than you would if you expect me to believe something that has no effect on my life at all other than what I might learn in a history class.

Why?

Also to believe the biblical story of Jesus you have to believe some of the old stories of the Old Testament that sounds unrealistic; like a man getting swallowed by a whale/fish and sits in the belly of this animal for 3 days without any air supply. Or the unrealistic story of Adam and Eve etc. to believe the bible story of Jesus you have to believe a lot of other stuff as well!

Not at all. You only have to believe that He rose from the dead.

Believing Caesar’s story doesn’t require this. That is why I find it unrealistic to expect the same criteria required to believe Caesar is all that is needed to believe the Bible story of Jesus.

I understand you believe that. But other than some special pleading you have not supported your assertion.


God Bless
Jax

 

[Johnnz]

Why do you say that? What did I say that you disagree with?

Ken

Jax has replied much as I would have.

John
NZ

 

[Received]

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

Scientific. I don't know what mathematical evidence would look like for anything, much less God.

 

[CabVet]

Scientific. I don't know what mathematical evidence would look like for anything, much less God.

Why exactly is God incommensurable in a scientific sense? Why can't we just scientifically test if prayers are answered more for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or atheists? That would be a really easy test to make.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why exactly is God incommensurable in a scientific sense? Why can't we just scientifically test if prayers are answered more for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or atheists? That would be a really easy test to make.

For the same reason that there is no test for detecting the invisible fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage.

The Dragon In My Garage

 

[Johnnz]

Why exactly is God incommensurable in a scientific sense? Why can't we just scientifically test if prayers are answered more for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or atheists? That would be a really easy test to make.

Silly stuff. You can accurately measure someone's love for you? How happy you are? How genuine a person's sympathy is?

Since Freud we understand that we don't even know ourselves that accurately.

What about historical material? Or judicial proof? They can't be assessed by scientific method. Yet history is the basic matrix of Christian understanding.

John
NZ

 

[CabVet]

For the same reason that there is no test for detecting the invisible fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage.

The Dragon In My Garage

You might not be able to detect him directly, but you can measure his influence. If you can show me, statistically, that when you talk to him using your thoughts, what you ask for actually happens, I may start to believe that he is there.

 

[bhsmte]

For the same reason that there is no test for detecting the invisible fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage.

The Dragon In My Garage

I guess that is all part of why it takes faith to believe in a God. Part of that faith is believing, the God you believe in can not be found, with science or other means.

 

[CabVet]

Silly stuff. You can accurately measure someone's love for you? How happy you are? How genuine a person's sympathy is?

No, but I can accurately determine if something (or someone) exists. The thread is about God's existence, not his feelings.

Since Freud we understand that we don't even know ourselves that accurately.

What about historical material? Or judicial proof? They can't be assessed by scientific method. Yet history is the basic matrix of Christian understanding.

John
NZ

Of course history can be assessed by the scientific method. And judicial proof. Both are, all the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Silly stuff. You can accurately measure someone's love for you? How happy you are? How genuine a person's sympathy is?

You can at least use evidence to establish that another person exists. Can't say the same for God.

What about historical material? Or judicial proof? They can't be assessed by scientific method.

Historical artefacts and forensic evidence are both sources of scientific evidence.

 

[Johnnz]

No, but I can accurately determine if something (or someone) exists. The thread is about God's existence, not his feelings.



Of course history can be assessed by the scientific method. And judicial proof. Both are, all the time.

Which means you don't understand the difference criteria. Fine. That settles something anyway.

John
NZ

 

[Loudmouth]

Which means you don't understand the difference criteria. Fine. That settles something anyway.

John
NZ

Do you really think it is as difficult to show that a person exists as it is to show that a deity exists? If so, you should really rethink your conclusions.

 

[Johnnz]

Do you really think it is as difficult to show that a person exists as it is to show that a deity exists? If so, you should really rethink your conclusions.

Or maybe you do?

History cannot be duplicated - a basic factor in scientific investigation. Nor can a murder which is a one time event.

The scientific method is fine for its subject matter, the material 'stuff' of our universe. Try to court your loved one on that basis by proving your feelings objectively.

John
NZ

 

[bhsmte]

Or maybe you do?

History cannot be duplicated - a basic factor in scientific investigation. Nor can a murder which is a one time event.

The scientific method is fine for its subject matter, the material 'stuff' of our universe. Try to court your loved one on that basis by proving your feelings objectively.

John
NZ

That material stuff, can be analyzed to determine facts about our history.

 

[Loudmouth]

History cannot be duplicated - a basic factor in scientific investigation. Nor can a murder which is a one time event.

That's not how scientific investigation works. Duplication refers to measurements and experimental results. We can take evidence created by that one time event and show that repeated measurements are within the limits of error. That fulfills the requirements of scientific investigations.

What happened in the past is the hypothesis. Nowhere in the scientific method does it require you to observe the hypothesis, or repeat the hypothesis.

The scientific method is fine for its subject matter, the material 'stuff' of our universe. Try to court your loved one on that basis by proving your feelings objectively.

We can use the scientific method to test whether a person exists. Why can't we do the same for God?