The NT is only correct and reliable if the interventionist god is both loving and all powerful. would you agree?

Therefore is the fact that the ‘evidences’ for the NT events are at best convoluted and shaky.. point to this not being the work all powerful and all loving god? unless he deliberaty wants to fill heaven with gullible people who believe what they’re told (by their hopes and fears) and uber smart people like you who can work out that the evidence is enough.

You’ll say that its not convoluted and shaky.. and i’ll say then why do you need faith? why is it not just accepted common knowledge that the resurrection happened? as it is that the A-bomb was dropped in 1945 or that Penicillin was discovered in 1928 by Flemming etc etc

As for non-empirical truth. well, again… thats fine as long as its ok to be a Christian whilst not accepting the ‘fact’ of the resurrection. When a Christian starts to talk about non-empirical evidence of jesus … i start to think that they are personally troubled by the lack of real evidence. which is understandable.

In that statement, I guess you are referring to 100% empirical and scientifically based evidence

By which, I assume you mean something I can either see, hear, touch, taste, perceive through specialized instruments or guess about by witnessing the impact it has on things we can somehow perceive? Yeah, that sounds good. Do you have another definition for “evidence” handy?

Does it bother you even slightly that you have no evidence of this sort that points to God’s existence, character or will?

Thus, maybe the ‘barometric pressure’ analogy did not make case and point as I first hoped it would.

No, I’m afraid for that analogy to work, you need an actual “wind” to blow, not just someone who says it did (or does). We may not be able to see the wind, but we can reliably perceive the effects of the wind. That gives wind an incredible head start on God when it comes to evidence.

But, the only reason I briefly point out an historical document is that we can reasonably know that Jesus was an actual person who lived and walked in the Palestine area in the first century, just as we can reasonably know Julius Caesar was the first Roman emperor.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to pretend that most of this historical evidence for Jesus is just as trustworthy as the historical evidence for Ceaser. After all, I asked for evidence, not proof, and you have provided evidence that a man named Jesus existed in Palestine in the first century. Thank-you.

When considering the reliability and historical nature of the NT, we recognize that scholars and historians have been able to collect some 5000 documents, in whole or part, that are copies of the NT (some very helpful documents like Codex Sinaiticus).

All right, certainly. That uncited scholarship is evidence that what we read in the New Testement today is at least a reliable reflection of what the original authors intended to write 2000 years ago. Good, thank-you.

We then consider if the implications of His life and teachings are worth bearing in our own lives.

Wonderful! Simple trial and error, or even well-conducted thought experiments can lead us to see whether anything the New Testement authors attributed to Jesus is worth considering or obeying in our own lives. Thank-you, Scott.

You have now provided evidence that:

a) a man named Jesus lived in or around Palestine in the first century CE;

b) stories written about this man Jesus are available to us that reliably reflect the original authors’ words, and;

c) using our reason, we can pick and choose among the teachings attributed to Jesus in these stories and find advice that will help us meet goals we choose for ourselves in our own lives.

Now, obviously, you have not proven any of these statements, but you have (more or less) provided at least one piece of evidence for each one– and that is all I asked for, was evidence, not proof. Thank-you.

The only thing is, Scott, what I really wanted (see those last two lines in my comment #87?) was evidence that God exists, or that Christianity teaches something accurate about God. Not proof! With proof, you would not need faith. But you claim that your faith is reasonable, and that you have “sufficient evidence” for it. So, I’m asking, one more time, Scott L:

Do you have any evidence, of any sort, that points to the existence of God or the ability of any Christian to know anything about God?

I’m not asking you to “concede that science empirically proves that Christianity is false”. But do you have even the slightest and flimsiest of indications pointing to the merest possibility that God exists and you can know God’s will for you? Anything?

Basically, because Josephus and another historian mention Jesus by name in passing, the entire New Testament text is made more reliable? I always find it laughable when Christians point to such accounts of Jesus’ life as well as accounts of Jesus’ death as evidence supporting Christianity. What they don’t realize is that none of those accounts detail any miracles or the resurrection, so you’re left at square one with the only things pointing to Jesus’ divinity are a collection of books and epistles by his closest followers. And of course, that provides for wonderfully partial historical accounts.

Your supposed treasure trove of evidence is looking mighty scanty…

In fact, all human progress came from heretics and unbelievers…who did not, or refused to kowtow or bend to god’s will or the church. Apparently, its god’s will that you become sick, suffer alot and die. Doctors and scientists…to hell with that.

I cannot tell you how many scientists were threatened with death by burning and torture because they created or invented a new medicine, vaccine or treatment…and went against “god’s will” and saved lives. The five physicians who invented ether to help women thru child birth in Scotland, were condemned by the church, because the bible said it was god’s swill that women suffer in agony in child birth for the sins of Eve. How nice.

Yes, there are still really crazy religious people who do not believe in science, medicine, or saving people’s lives using modern medicine…Thank goodness for the heretics.

Today, the remnant’s of these insane religious people include some Pentacostals, Church of Christers, Amish, Christian Science (hahahah what a misnomer) Church of Bible Science and so on…who do not believe in medicine. Every year, the court systems have to take these bozos to court in order to force them to provide medical care for their children. These bozos would allow their children to die without being treated…because its all god’s swill.

I personally witnessed the Pentacostals kill a diabetic woman who lived on my father’s ranch in a rent house. Her church told her to stop using insulin because they were praying and sure god was going to heal her. Gangrene set in her leg, and she died inch by inch in agony. We could smell her rotting flesh for two weeks until she died. This was one of my first memories that put a chink in my religious “belief.”

However, the massive hypocrisy is…that when 95% of the little christians get seriously ill…do they call upon their preacher to pray them to health or cure them? Hell no!…they run like blazes to their doctor.

Down deep the christers know for a fact, prayer does not work, their preachers can’t even stop them from becoming ill, their religion does not cure anything..and the only chance they have at being cured is by scientists, researchers, and medical doctors…most of whom are atheists.

For that reason alone…the entire value of religion is in doubt. I think the christians should come right out and start a church called The Church of Christian Hypocrisy…and just get it over with. It continues to amaze me how “proud” they are of their irrational beliefs.

DeeVee

‘In fact, the harder I looked, the more I realized that there is not one single piece of evidence that undeniably points to a supernatural, let alone enough that we can kid ourselves about knowing a potential god’s character, will or capabilities.’

In that statement, I guess you are referring to 100% empirical and scientifically based evidence. If so, I must concede, from my own understanding, that there is probably no such evidence. Thus, maybe the ‘barometric pressure’ analogy did not make case and point as I first hoped it would. Nonetheless, I still find Greenleaf’s (founder of the Harvard Law School) words as reasonable, or of fair judgment: ‘Christianity does not “bring irresistible evidence” but offers “sufficient evidences” for the serious inquirer.

Thus, for a short example, we see that even Jewish historians such as Josephus referred to the actual historical existence of Jesus (see Antiquities, Book 18, ch.3, paragraph 3). I believe it was also the Jewish historian, Philo, who also referred to Christ in his works, I believe by the name Chrestus, but my memory somewhat fails me with Philo.

Now, of course, this is not scientifically based, empirical evidence. And, as I stated just above, I am not sure such can be given. But, the only reason I briefly point out an historical document is that we can reasonably know that Jesus was an actual person who lived and walked in the Palestine area in the first century, just as we can reasonably know Julius Caesar was the first Roman emperor. Thus, the NT is an historical document that has recorded the teachings, miracles, etc, of this one named Jesus. And so, if there are external sources attesting to the fact that He lived, then maybe we then consider the main text that speaks of this one called Jesus. We didn’t start with Josephus and Philo, but maybe after being intrigued by the writings of the NT, we do a little historical research to see if this guy named Jesus was even a real person.

When considering the reliability and historical nature of the NT, we recognize that scholars and historians have been able to collect some 5000 documents, in whole or part, that are copies of the NT (some very helpful documents like Codex Sinaiticus). If I am not mistaken, the NT copies attained give maybe more evidence than most any other ancient near eastern text known to man. This helps us consider whether the NT is completely fabricated or a reasonably accurate and helpful account of this one named Jesus. If so, then we begin to consider the things He taught and what the NT teaches about Christ. We then consider if the implications of His life and teachings are worth bearing in our own lives. Etc, etc, etc.

This is just one brief way of working through reasonable evidence, which I believe is reasonable to consider that it will be sufficient for the seeker who is honest and willing to admit we will never have all the empirically scientific or biological evidences to ‘prove’ such, but again, it is reasonable and sufficient for the seeker.

In the end, I know that even if I bring up pages and pages of reasonable historical, philosophical, etc, evidence in support of Christianity, only another question will be fired my way (or someone else’s who could give better justice to the arguments). And then another, and then another, and on and on. Unfortunately, for those who have an insatiable thirst for empirical evidence as the only sufficient source for ‘believing’ anything, I am not sure that thirst will ever be satisfied – by theology, philosophy, or science. It’s not that we don’t want to reasonably think through things, but we all know that you will not concede with any argument. I don’t know if it is reasonable to want all scientifically based evidence for everything. Again, people will want fair and sufficient evidence as we search, but not mathematically or scientifically empirical evidence.

In the end, I cannot concede that science empirically proves that Christianity is false. For me, that evidence has not been unearthed, nor do I believe it will be. Just as I cannot prove to you that God exists by saying, ‘Look, there he is,’ you cannot prove He does not exist through scientific evidence and proof. We would have to be all-knowing to rule out God.

In all, I do appreciate the discussions and challenges. You make me think through my faith and beliefs, and that is important. Thanks for all the interaction.

weren’t they ALL Christians in your list?

do you have any books by not Christians… saying that they think the bible is truly accurate and reliable?

i would imagine that Quester has already read a lot of Lewis, Chesterton and the like and rejected their arguments. I know for me, mere Christianity and surprised by joy made a lot of sense when i was a Christian… not any more i hasten to add… (McGrath /lennox makes me cringe, to be honest.. nice you chose 2 of my compatriots in your list though!) i dont think quester is looking for good apologetics he’s looking for the evidence you promised him

But maybe you could paraphrase something you particularly like.. one or two pieces of really good evidence. Not for teleology, but for a resurrected Jesus… if you would.

When I say religions are “man-made”, I say that so that you will understand that they are not divinely inspired, as the vast majority claim to be, showing that many parts of their doctrine are indeed false (namely, the ones that say that they’re divinely inspired) and are no more significant than any other religion. Thus, saying that a religion is man-made is quite different than saying a scientific theory is man-made, because the former relies on the assumption that it isn’t man-made while the latter readily acknowledges that it is indeed man-made, and therefore subject to change and revision.

Furthermore, saying that a religion is man-made points out how it is merely a collection of myths and doctrines fabricated by humans, with no bearing on the actual Universe. On the other hand, scientific theories are not “man-made” in that sense, but they are efforts by man to uncover how the Universe actually works, which would make them more “man-revealed”, because scientists do not create physical laws and phenomena — they simply attempt to describe what’s already there as best they can. I hope that’s clearer now.

But none of the sciences disprove God.

I beg to differ. The sciences do indeed disprove particular gods (I’m thinking specifically of the Christian God), but not the general concept of some transcendent being(s) called god(s). For an example of how science disproves the Christian concept of God, refer to the problem of evil combined with something like evolution. If man’s “free will” (which most likely doesn’t exist) caused suffering, how did it exist before humans even arose on this planet (about 2.4 billion years of life, death, and suffering), and furthermore, why did a loving God choose a process such as evolution that is inextricably tied with death and suffering to bring about all of his creations?

That’s my favourite example, but other things such as prayer shown to be ineffective through statistical study, as well as through direct observation of the world (millions pray for an end to world hunger daily, but thousands still starve to death simultaneously), the aforementioned lack of free will (which is necessary in the Christian religion), the redundancy of the soul in the face of neuroscientific research, and other things that I’m certain I’ve missed serve to reinforce a belief beyond reasonable doubt that the Christian God simply doesn’t exist.

You are within rights to want to know evidences. I am not sure if I should list books and websites or what.

How about listing evidence? Books and websites are not evidence that God exists. They might contain evidence, but if so, surely you can provide at least one example. You say your faith is not blind. You say it is reasonable. Go ahead, then, and point out one piece of evidence for it. So far in this thread, you have typed just short of 3,000 words supposedly in support of Christianity being reasonable, without mentioning one piece of evidence or how you used your reason to interpret it. To use your analogy, I’ll accept “barometric pressure, temperature changes, and noting other weather evidences through scientific measurements” if you have them, but even if all you can do is show me a wind that is blowing, please do so. Listing the names of meterologists tells me nothing about whether or not a storm is coming.

Some of these people are Christians, so I think that you might disagree with their works and evidential arguments.

Balderdash. Evidence and arguments are not stronger or weaker because of who points to the evidence or who makes the argument. When I first read “God is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, I expected to disagree with every point he would make. I had been a Christian for years and had argued with many atheists about their illogical and ignorant claims against God’s existence. I was not surprised when page after page of Hitchen’s book was filled with simple, factual errors. But when I thought about what the actual facts were, and replaced what he said with the truth, I found that his arguments were not weakened any. Again, to use your analogy, we can pretend that Hitchens claimed that a storm was coming because he heard thunder and I laughed because I heard no thunder, but then realized that the dark clouds I saw rolling in pointed to the same conclusion of an oncoming storm.

I’d use an actual example instead of your analogy, but I’d borrowed the book and since returned it. I don’t actually own a copy.

My point, though, is that even when I expect to disagree with someone, if they make a good argument, then they’ve made a good argument. If they have evidence, then they have evidence. If they make a poor argument, or have no evidence to point to, then I don’t care how may degrees they have hanging on their wall, how many books they’ve published or how likely I am to share their opinion usually.

Are you familiar with the argument from authority fallacy?

It has caused many a Christians to have to handle some observations and tougher questions. But none of the sciences disprove God.

That’s the point at which I spent most of my life, holding onto the belief I was raised in and thinking I was being reasonable because nothing could prove Christianity wrong- to someone with a quick enough wit and a flexible enough theology. Last year, however, I realized that while nothing can disprove Christianity, nothing could prove it, either. In fact, the harder I looked, the more I realized that there is not one single piece of evidence that undeniably points to a supernatural, let alone enough that we can kid ourselves about knowing a potential god’s character, will or capabilities. At that point, I had to step down from ordained ministry. How could I point others to God if I could not know anything about God, including whether or not God exists?

If you have evidence that God exists, or that Christianity knows something about God, I’m willing to hear it. Please share.

You are within rights to want to know evidences. I am not sure if I should list books and websites or what.

Scientifically we could like at people like Alister McGrath of Oxford, John Lennox of Oxford, Michael Behe of LeHigh University (though Dawkins is not a fan of his ‘irreducible complexity’ argument, which is fine)

Philosophically we could consider G.K. Chesterson, C.S. Lewis – not just ‘Mere Christianity’ but also ‘The Abolition of Man’ (though you might not like these two for being Christians), and even something like the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy on teleological arguments – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments, and Antony Flew who later in life moved from an atheistic to a deist point of view.

Historically we could consider the writings of Walter Kaiser and F.F. Bruce who addressed the historical accuracy questions in both the OT (Kaiser) and NT (Bruce)

This is just a very small list. Some of these people are Christians, so I think that you might disagree with their works and evidential arguments. But I at least point to people who have taken the time to consider the gamut of arguments and have presented reasonable evidences. Thus, I would say we are not jumping into a blind faith. We are considering something reasonable.

As Simon Greenleaf, founder of Harvard Law School, said something to this effect in one of his treatises: ‘Christianity does not “bring irresistible evidence” but offers sufficient evidences for “the serious inquirer”.

qmonkey –

I know you have made this comment in other posts – The whole argument is that only rational and learned people can make the full and proper decisions about evidences and arguments, thus, does God love these people more.

I can only point to my reply to Obi about a posteriori arguments. We deduce a storm is coming because the wind is blowing hard. But only after the fact do we also study the scientific evidences to see if things contradict what our conscience, prudent common sense, and general observance tells us. Sure, I might have more access to books and scholarship than someone living in West Africa, but oddly enough, it seems that both groups of people are responding to the message about Christ. Some, like a McGrath of McDowell, needed the study to lead them to follow Christ. But all at the same time, I think they would argue that there was an inner-divine drawing in their own heart and life. Maybe they only realized that ‘drawing’ after the fact.

And this is why, as I am sure you are aware of and possibly disagree with, we don’t ultimately base our decision on scientifically gained evidences. We cannot disregard them. But this cannot be all empirically proved. Hence, we do respond with faith, that is belief. Again, not blind faith, for I think we can say this is reasonable. But, in the end, even a scientist must have ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ that their evidences and interpretation of data is correct. But Christians do have a firm conviction that the Bible is God’s communication to humanity and that Christ is who He said He is in the Bible. I have faith in this, not because science proved it. But as the different arenas of science come out with possible evidences, I must consider them if they contradict.

In all, God is not more impressed and does not love more those who have a high intelligence. He is communicating with all and longs that all respond to Him. You know all this stuff.