Evidence for the Validity of Christianity. Where?

[solarwave]

In one sense, I'm not sure. As I've said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and exactly what that could be is up for grabs. But I do know it would have be be corroborated by a multiple secular, non-Christian entities that had no faith-based interests in it.

If 'non-Christian entities' found what they found to be compelling evidence, wouldn't they not become christians and then you could call them bias?

What about peoples lives being changed round by Jesus or healings? The prophecies fulfilled by Jesus' life and death. Why did the universe begin. How the universe seems so 'fine tuned' for life to be possible by chance. Again just a few thoughts there, and if you think you can answer them fair enough, I'ld be happy to hear.

 

[inquisitor-07]

If one buys the story. But we only have the say-so of a book stitched together over hundreds of years and the accounts of the resurrection written many years after the fact. This hardly constitutes good evidence, particularly when one considers that the books were purposely selected so as to represent a united, foregone theology. So citing the Bible does not constitute good evidence. No more so than would citing any other single source be good evidence for anything. Unusual claims demand unusual evidence.

With due respect, I disagree with your conclusion and believe that there is more value in solarwave's argument than you gave credit. Even circumstantial and indirect evidence can go a long way to adding weight to a position.

Allow me to extrapolate:

Scholars accept that St. Paul existed and that he wrote his 13 letters from the time period between 51-62 AD. Other letters that make note of St. Paul, namely Acts and 2 Peter were most likely written about 62 AD and between 65-68 AD. This is where direct facts end. The question that is of interest to us is firstly whether Paul was a persecutor of the church and secondly whether he really met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

As an aside, Sir Wililam Ramsay - one of the greatest archaeologists ever, did not believe that the New Testament documents were historically reliable; however, his archaeological investigations drove him to see that his scepticism was unwarranted from which he noted in Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Truthworthiness of the New Testament that "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... he should be placed along with the greatest of historians".

Logically, if Paul never persecuted the church as Luke recorded in Acts, then why would Paul himself have talked about it in his letters? In fact, he goes far enough to label himself as "the chief of all sinners" because of his former zealous persecution of the church. Furthermore, would not the church congregation have been confused if Paul talked about this event and it never happened? That makes no sense.

In response to the second question, one has to question what happened to seemingly change his heart towards Christians. He thought that what he was doing was good and right in the name of God. Most likely he felt no guilt over what he did in his attempts to destroy the church ... yet all of a sudden he stops and becomes one of the greatest evangelists in Christian history. Why?

Yes, it takes a small measure of faith to believe that Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, but when you add up all the circumstantial and logical evidence it is reasonable to presume that Jesus is the risen Son of God. As you said it takes faith to believe, but I ask you: Does it take more faith to believe that Paul met Jesus or that he for some unknown reason stopped persecuting Christians and instead became one of them until his death in Rome for the cause of Christ?

I would also be interested in your direct response to solarwave's argument that all the religious leaders and Romans had to do was produce Jesus' dead body and then the Christian faith would have finished before it started. You largely evaded it in your post.


An article that you may find interesting: Probability that the Apostle Paul existed as a skeptic available at <harvardhouse.com/apostle_paul.htm>.

 

[Washington]

inquisitor-07,

I have no idea what specific evidence convinced Ramsay of the veracity of Luke, other than he concluded Luke was a very good historian. Not to get into this as a side issue---and I won't---but Luke, a companion of Paul, is said to have simply drawn on the accounts penned by others, principally Mark and the Q document. So the author of Luke is simply reiterating the claims of others, and as a Christian he would be biased as to their authenticity. All of which makes Ramsay's conversion quite suspect in my mind, and therefore of little if any value.

I would also be interested in your direct response to solarwave's argument that all the religious leaders and Romans had to do was produce Jesus' dead body and then the Christian faith would have finished before it started. You largely evaded it in your post.

Evaded it? No, I simply found it rather poor and not worth responding to. I have no idea who solarwave was referring to by his "important people," who he feels should have been compelled to "bring out Jesus['s] body" so as to disprove [?] Christian claims. I have not heard of any people who cared enough at the time to do such a thing, particularly in a timely manner, which would have been crucial. That no one did so would most likely have been because no one cared, not that they tried but could not.

Yes, it takes a small measure of faith to believe that Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, but when you add up all the circumstantial and logical evidence it is reasonable to presume that Jesus is the risen Son of God.

I disagree. I think it takes an uncommon bias and need to believe.

 

[sageoffools]

Washington,
Rather than answering defensively, let me answer offensively. What proof do you have, or can you cite, that the Bible is incorrect?
I believe in God, because the Bible tells me that He is real. I believe in the Bible, because there has been nothing in all of my research and study that has been able to disprove the Bible. Everything in history (even secular historians), archeology, and science fact supports the claims of the Bible.
The only "evidence" that any person has that refutes the Bible is science "interpretation". What I mean by science interpretation, is the conclusions that scientists draw from the things that they study.
For example, when a scientist finds a skull, he may be able to determine some details of the person by studying the hard evidence of other skulls. But when that scientist uses his study of the single skull to postulate about an entire new "species" of "humans", that is science interpretation, his speculation based on the speculation of others, that is where science starts to fall apart. Only one block in the foundation needs to be made of Styrofoam for the entire house to be unstable.

I suppose my final question would be, are you really interested in an answer? Do you really want to find out if the Bible is true, or have you already decided that it is not. If this is the case, nothing that anyone says here is going to convince you, you have already decided that you are right, and no one will be able to prove you otherwise, and it is really pointless to continue.
However, if you are truly seeking an answer, I would urge you to read C.S. Lewis, specifically Mere Christianity, as Lewis sets about to prove the existence of God apart from the Bible. I think you would find it useful in your search, if it is such.

 

[Washington]

Washington,
Rather than answering defensively, let me answer offensively. What proof do you have, or can you cite, that the Bible is incorrect?

I know this probably seems like a legitimate question, but in issues such as this the burden of proof rests on those making the positive assertion: "The Bible IS correct." It's no different than if I asserted that pink fairies visited me last night, and you doubted me, and I retorted with:"Prove they didn't." Proving a negative is often exceedingly more difficult than proving a positive. And why should the burden fall on the doubter rather than on the one making the claim?

That said, I find the whole of Christian theology riddled with flaws of fact and reason, which I don't intend on going into.

I believe in God, because the Bible tells me that He is real. I believe in the Bible, because there has been nothing in all of my research and study that has been able to disprove the Bible. Everything in history (even secular historians), archeology, and science fact supports the claims of the Bible.

Despite your obvious need to believe this, No, it does not.

The only "evidence" that any person has that refutes the Bible is science "interpretation". What I mean by science interpretation, is the conclusions that scientists draw from the things that they study.

Sorry that your bias has so skewed your thinking.

I suppose my final question would be, are you really interested in an answer? Do you really want to find out if the Bible is true, or have you already decided that it is not. If this is the case, nothing that anyone says here is going to convince you, you have already decided that you are right, and no one will be able to prove you otherwise, and it is really pointless to continue.

My question was not about the Bible per se, although it can be germane to the issue, but about Christianity.

 

[sageoffools]

I know this probably seems like a legitimate question, but in issues such as this the burden of proof rests on those making the positive assertion: "The Bible IS correct." It's no different than if I asserted that pink fairies visited me last night, and you doubted me, and I retorted with:"Prove they didn't." Proving a negative is often exceedingly more difficult than proving a positive. And why should the burden fall on the doubter rather than on the one making the claim?

That said, I find the whole of Christian theology riddled with flaws of fact and reason, which I don't intend on going into.

Despite your obvious need to believe this, No, it does not.

Sorry that your bias has so skewed your thinking.

My question was not about the Bible per se, although it can be germane to the issue, but about Christianity.

While I appreciate your inquiry, your lack of argument shows either a lack of understanding, or a lack of concern for find a real answer.
Essentially, in response to all of my arguments and assertions, your answer was "No it isn't", while offering no reasoning or evidence as to why your assertions are correct.

Regarding your actual comments, you are correct, proving a negative is always more exceedingly difficult. It is more difficult, because in order for you to prove a negative you would have to have a capacity of knowledge that no one can posses. In order for you to claim that, definitively, there is no God, you would have to have all knowledge in the world, otherwise, you would have to admit that there is a possibility that somewhere, contained within the knowledge that you do not know, there is evidence of a God.
You claim to "know" that Christian theology is "riddled with flaws" yet you refuse to share them, perhaps you are afraid that the "flaws" that you "know" are not correct, and would be defeated?

Finally, yes, you were addressing Christianity directly, however, all of the beliefs of Christianity are based on the Bible, therefore, to question Christianity is to question the Bible.

SOF

 

[sageoffools]

Hmmmm
The more that I sit and think about your comment regarding proving negatives, the more I disagree, in this instance.
While I do agree, that in most cases proving a negative is more difficult,
EG, prove that no one in America drinks Pepsi, you would have to know every single person in America, and be able to prove that they do not drink Pepsi.
However, when it comes to the argument of the validity of the Bible which, as I stated, is the basis for Christianity, it is actually the opposite.
In order for me to positively say that the Bible is true, I would have to be able to prove that all passages of the Bible are without flaw.
In order for you to negatively say that the Bible is not true, all you would have to do is be able to demonstrate one area, supported by real evidence, where the Bible is errant, and with that single passage, you would be able to cast all of the rest of the Bible into question.
So please, do not withhold for our sakes, share your evidences of the flaws within Christianity. We would appreciate the opportunity to investigate them.

SOF

 

[Washington]

Essentially, in response to all of my arguments and assertions, your answer was "No it isn't", while offering no reasoning or evidence as to why your assertions are correct.

Excuse meee! I addressed the first part of your first paragraph, and the second part was nothing but a statement of your beliefs and a silly assertion that didn't deserve more than the terse answer I gave.

You second paragraph was another silly assertion, which I addressed likewise.

Your third paragraph was an "example" that didn't merit comment.

In your fourth paragraph I neglected to answer your question. Sorry, but I thought it would be evident by the replies I made that the answer would "Yes," and therefore figured your question was more rhetorical than anything.

You claim to "know" that Christian theology is "riddled with flaws" yet you refuse to share them, perhaps you are afraid that the "flaws" that you "know" are not correct, and would be defeated?

Perhaps, and perhaps not. But whatever the case, I don't intend to derail the thread with the side issue.

Finally, yes, you were addressing Christianity directly, however, all of the beliefs of Christianity are based on the Bible, therefore, to question Christianity is to question the Bible.

Not according to some fundamentalists and charismatics who establish additional "truth" through claims of divine inspiration and even divine communication.

when it comes to the argument of the validity of the Bible which, as I stated, is the basis for Christianity, it is actually the opposite.
In order for me to positively say that the Bible is true, I would have to be able to prove that all passages of the Bible are without flaw.

Your choice, of course.

In order for you to negatively say that the Bible is not true, all you would have to do is be able to demonstrate one area, supported by real evidence, where the Bible is errant, and with that single passage, you would be able to cast all of the rest of the Bible into question.
So please, do not withhold for our sakes, share your evidences of the flaws within Christianity. We would appreciate the opportunity to investigate them.

I assume you meant to say, "positively say that the Bible is not true."
Again, I don't intend to derail the thread with what I consider evidence against the Bible. If you sincerely want evidence that speaks against the veracity of the Bible I suggest you create a thread asking for just that. However, be warned that neither I nor others would likely brook any excuses such as "Well verse X: XX can't be taken as written but rather as _________ ." Or, "That's not what the XXXX version of the Bible says." Or, "that word doesn't mean what it says but rather it implies ____ ." Such tap dancing just won't wash. At least with me.

 

[solarwave]

Evaded it? No, I simply found it rather poor and not worth responding to. I have no idea who solarwave was referring to by his "important people," who he feels should have been compelled to "bring out Jesus['s] body" so as to disprove [?] Christian claims. I have not heard of any people who cared enough at the time to do such a thing, particularly in a timely manner, which would have been crucial. That no one did so would most likely have been because no one cared, not that they tried but could not.

Most arguements against christianity I have even seen are pretty poor too if people take the time to think, but I still respond otherwise you end up with people with pathetic arguements that they think are good. What do you mean no one cared? Can you back that up? It seems to me at a glance that christians were being chased up to be put in prison. I could be wrong though.

Anyway, I think this is going no where, so I'll bow out of this thread I think.

 

[Washington]

What do you mean no one cared? Can you back that up? It seems to me at a glance that christians were being chased up to be put in prison. I could be wrong though.

The only account that I'm aware of that touches on the reaction of others is Matthew 29 were it says the chief priests told the guards to simply spread the story that Jesus' disciples stole the body, which he said would satisfy the Governor. End of "problem."

 

[OldChurchGuy]

In one sense, I'm not sure. As I've said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and exactly what that could be is up for grabs. But I do know it would have be be corroborated by a multiple secular, non-Christian entities that had no faith-based interests in it.

As you recognize, there doesn't seem to be any at all. In fact, many aspects of the Christian belief argue against each other, and it is only by ignoring them that they do as little damage as they do to the faith. But this is a side issue I don't care to get into here.

Since all religions are a matter of faith, why is corroboration by "a multiple secular, non-Christian entities that had no faith-based interests in it" important?

Confused,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Washington]

Since all religions are a matter of faith, why is corroboration by "a multiple secular, non-Christian entities that had no faith-based interests in it" important?

And that was the gist of my question: "Is there anything that Christianity has to offer for evidence of its validity other than a reliance on faith or an emotional response?" You say there isn't, whereas others here have tried to convince me otherwise. I side with you on this. However, for those who feel there is such evidence, it would require corroboration by multiple secular, non-Christian entities that had no faith-based interests in it because of the supernatural nature such evidence is suppose to support and the incredible bias I've seen accompanying other representations of evidence. Christian apologists are notorious for their prejudice and unwavering bias. They often seem to operate within a whole differnt mind-set than when dealing with secular matters. It's almost like having a split personality.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

And that was the gist of my question: "Is there anything that Christianity has to offer for evidence of its validity other than a reliance on faith or an emotional response?" You say there isn't, whereas others here have tried to convince me otherwise. I side with you on this. However, for those who feel there is such evidence, it would require corroboration by multiple secular, non-Christian entities that had no faith-based interests in it because of the supernatural nature such evidence is suppose to support and the incredible bias I've seen accompanying other representations of evidence. Christian apologists are notorious for their prejudice and unwavering bias. They often seem to operate within a whole differnt mind-set than when dealing with secular matters. It's almost like having a split personality.

First, I realize that is the gist of your question. My question is asking why this is important to you? Why does it matter to you if there is evidence outside of faith or emotional response?

While I agree there is no direct irrefutable evidence that the people mentioned in the New Testament existed, I believe they did. Can I prove it? No.

Do I need to prove it? No.

So long as I do not attempt to present my beliefs to you without your permission then my beliefs should not matter to you. I suspect the real argument here is not so much about faith as it is about well intentioned people who try to convince you their faith is worth adopting when you have not asked for them to share their faith. If I am wrong, please set me straight.

Enjoying the exchange,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Washington]

My question is asking why this is important to you? Why does it matter to you if there is evidence outside of faith or emotional response?

Ah, the question of motive. Not germane at all, but understandable in the sense of: "Why are you attacking us."

Quite a few Christians claim there is evidence for the truth of their religion that goes beyond faith, and because I have yet to see any, I'm looking for whatever else they may have. Evidence I may have missed.

As for why this is important to me, it really isn't, at least as nothing more than a matter of curiosity, AND as an opportunity to demonstrate how shaky their basis for acceptance is--I don't believe any evidence they present can stand up to scrutiny, which would hopefully divest them of their sense of moral superiority, and perhaps give them pause to reflect on their belief. Other than as a fabricated coping mechanism I don't see religion as a positive construct. In fact, I regard it as an unnecessary crutch that too often has done significant harm.

And while we're at it, in the same vain I'll ask you why my questioning important to you? Why do you care what my motive may be?

I suspect the real argument here is not so much about faith as it is about well intentioned people who try to convince you their faith is worth adopting when you have not asked for them to share their faith. If I am wrong, please set me straight.

You are are wrong, which I think my response above shows.

Enjoying the exchange,

As am I.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Ah, the question of motive. Not germane at all, but understandable in the sense of: "Why are you attacking us."

Quite a few Christians claim there is evidence for the truth of their religion that goes beyond faith, and because I have yet to see any, I'm looking for whatever else they may have. Evidence I may have missed.

As for why this is important to me, it really isn't, at least as nothing more than a matter of curiosity, AND as an opportunity to demonstrate how shaky their basis for acceptance is--I don't believe any evidence they present can stand up to scrutiny, which would hopefully divest them of their sense of moral superiority, and perhaps give them pause to reflect on their belief. Other than as a fabricated coping mechanism I don't see religion as a positive construct. In fact, I regard it as an unnecessary crutch that too often has done significant harm.

And while we're at it, in the same vain I'll ask you why my questioning important to you? Why do you care what my motive may be?



You are are wrong, which I think my response above shows.




As am I.

In my admittedly limited experience in corresponding with atheists, sometimes the hard critical questions are a mask for a genuine interest in embracing Christianity. Apparently I was mistaken in this case and for that error I apologize.

Regarding the question as to caring about your motive for the questioning, it comes down to a personal pet peeve of mine. I see Christianity as an individual adventure with God. Since we do not have any of the original manuscripts it seems to me impossible to say with absolute certainty what is the true word of God and what was added by well meaning scribes. Combine this with my belief that until the entire known universe can be fully explained there is room for God and science.

With those two ideas in mind, it bothers me when theists are so caught up in an evangelical zeal that they have a given set of beliefs which they understand to be THE set of beliefs. All efforts are then concentrated to convert others to that set of beliefs and all other beliefs are to be ignored.

It also bothers me when atheists show a similar evangelical zeal. I may be wrong but I see this exchange as an excercise in "evangelical atheism".

If the concern is for those theists who come across as "morally superior" it is my sincere hope I am not among them.

Enough rambling.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Washington]

In my admittedly limited experience in corresponding with atheists, sometimes the hard critical questions are a mask for a genuine interest in embracing Christianity. Apparently I was mistaken in this case and for that error I apologize.

The Christian religion is so riddled with pitfalls of various sorts that I don't see myself ever considering it.

I may be wrong but I see this exchange as an excercise in "evangelical atheism".

First of all, although I don't believe there is a god, I haven't discounted the possibility altogether, so while I share a lot in common with atheists, I remain an agnostic. Secondly, if my intent was to actually evangelize for atheism or even agnosticism, believe me, my approach would be much different. I don't really care if anyone believes there's a god or not, but I do care how the beliefs of some affect others, and in this regard I think Christianity can do with a whole lot of house cleaning. And because few care to do this on their own, I will sometimes try to prod them into reconsidering their beliefs. Of course I don't hold out much hope at all, but I do get a little kick out of pricking them with what I consider there shortcomings, if for no other reason than to perhaps deflate their sense of righteousness. Live and let live has never been on the Christian's "To Do" list, and for those of us who must endure their controlling presence in our society---passing laws against gay marriages, being one such example---it's a real bummer, to put it politely.

 

[aiki]

I have had occasion to observe children who sit sulkily amidst the play of other children and refuse to join in. No matter what the other children say or do to encourage the miserable one to lighten up and play, their invitations are stubbornly resisted. It is obvious that the child would have to be made to have fun completely against his inclination. But no one can be forced to have fun; fun by its very nature is voluntary.

You remind me very much of such children, Washington. You have approached the Christians here like a sulky child demanding to be made to have fun. You demand to be convinced when you obviously have no intention of ever being convinced. Oh, you carry on like the problem is with the evidence for the Christian faith, but the more you respond to posts, the clearer it becomes that you aren't looking for answers, but for a chance to be superior and dismissive.

It is more than mere evidence that persuades people to a change in their view. Smokers know that their cigarette habit is likely to kill them, but that doesn't necessarily stop them from smoking. Obese people suffer all sorts of physical problems and are aware that obesity can be lethal, but this doesn't necessarily make them more careful eaters. People are aware of the evidence in favor of wearing a seatbelt while driving a car, or wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, but this doesn't mean they are always persuaded to do so. The evidence by itself is not always enough to effect a genuine change in a person's point of view.

Matthew 7:6 (NKJV)
6 Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Peace.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

The Christian religion is so riddled with pitfalls of various sorts that I don't see myself ever considering it.




First of all, although I don't believe there is a god, I haven't discounted the possibility altogether, so while I share a lot in common with atheists, I remain an agnostic. Secondly, if my intent was to actually evangelize for atheism or even agnosticism, believe me, my approach would be much different. I don't really care if anyone believes there's a god or not, but I do care how the beliefs of some affect others, and in this regard I think Christianity can do with a whole lot of house cleaning. And because few care to do this on their own, I will sometimes try to prod them into reconsidering their beliefs. Of course I don't hold out much hope at all, but I do get a little kick out of pricking them with what I consider there shortcomings, if for no other reason than to perhaps deflate their sense of righteousness. Live and let live has never been on the Christian's "To Do" list, and for those of us who must endure their controlling presence in our society---passing laws against gay marriages, being one such example---it's a real bummer, to put it politely.

Your point is well taken. I apologize for labeling our exchange as "evangelical atheism". I think we are really in agreement over much more than what we disagree about.

Regarding the example mentioned about laws against gay marriage, I wonder how many people voted out of sincere conviction of religious belief and how many voted from a fear or uneasiness of the issue and used religion as an excuse.

Regardless, the beauty of the system of laws in the United States is that the system allows issues to be brought up again for reconsideration. For example, it is my understanding one of the arguments against giving women the right to vote was based on various Biblical verses and their interpretation. Yet, over time, women won the right to vote and I doubt that very few Biblical literalists would want that repealed.

Granted, there are those who feel that ANY deviation from they understand as strict Biblical interpretation should be fought. But, this country seems to have a history of making social change based on the collective wisdom of the voters sometimes because of and sometimes in spite of such views.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[irenemcg]

I have devoted a page on my site to this, and I suggest you watch the video at the bottom.

 

[Simple_Mind]

I can't think of a single thing that's ever been posited in favor of Christian belief that didn't come down to sheer faith.

I used to think this was the case. Further investigation however led me to a different conclusion.

I have summarized some of the evidence (that I came across) at the following link (and article-links from that page):
http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/god.htm

IOW, there is nothing the Christian has been able to point to as evidence outside of their assertion that their faith is true or valid. In light of this, why would the non-believer take the word of the Christian over the word of those of other faiths?

See above.

I used to be an atheist. Over time, I became disillusioned with Atheism, and ultimately became a Christian Theist.

It might be useful to see http://www.godsci.org/gs/chri/testimony/seek.html for a summary of the path that led me from Atheism to Christ.

It was a combination of intellectual evidence, in addition to experiential events and emotional considerations that influenced me to Christian Theism.

I know some will us the "try it out" tactic, expecting the non-believer to be overwhelmed as they were by the "feeling or subjective apprehension of truth," but responses such as this are hardly unique to Christianity. So it really fails as any kind of tool.

Try it out is a valid tool that works for some individuals. For me to come to Christ, it took a combination of intellectual evidence, in addition to experiential events and emotional considerations.

My question then is: Is there anything the Christianity has to offer for evidence of its validity other than a reliance on faith or an emotional response?

See links above.

Moreover, if there is not, why would a caring god not make sure such evidence existed for those of us, like myself, who find subjective claims far from persuasive and, in fact, rather specious?

The Christian God has provided evidence for those who are willing to seek him with sincerity, humility and perseverance.

Cordially,
John