A "proof" for God

[ccmnxc]

I have a problem with points 3 & 4. The apostles were obviously fully convinced, but so were the martyrs of Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, revolutionary movements and so on, along with soldiers who die for their country, sometimes in great pain. Those who die for what they believe must be respected, but it can’t prove their beliefs are true.

There is an important distinction to be made here though. That they were willing to die (not commenting on the historical support for this, take it as a given for this example), is a good indication that they were not following something they believed or knew to be a lie. It is evidence that they truly believed what they were saying instead of concocting some story about the resurrection of their teacher. The people you listed tend not to die for something they know to be a lie. Most if not all martyrs die for something they believe in as opposed to something they know to be false. I will allow that there may be occasional exceptions. However, let’s assume in this case that it is factually established that 11 of the 12 of them were martyred. While individuals in the past may have died for something they knew to be a lie, it does not happen often. When one takes into account that this was a group of 12 men (1 of which was supposedly exiled and 11 of which were supposedly martyred), and none of them are on the record for rejecting what they had been advancing, that provides compelling evidence that they truly believed it. When one also takes into account the fact that they had little to gain (not only everything to lose), the probability that they all were persecuted and mostly died for something they knew to be a lie becomes vanishingly small.

Now, frankly, I am not a fan of this type of argumentation (it is better than nothing, though). This is because history is really grey, and I frankly doubt one could easily convince a skeptic that the Gospels were:
a. written by Jesus’ immediate followers who were killed (at least not all of them)
b. relatively unblemished since their writing down in the late first century, and
c. accurate portrayals of what actually occurred.
I’ll admit, when it comes to history and Biblical scholarship, I am very weak on the apologetics front. Give me philosophy, give me science, but I really don’t know that much about history. Due to the lack of solid, empirical verification, I think history, while an important and meaningful endeavor, can hardly put up concrete-solid points. Maybe I am just biased, but that is they way I see it, and that is why I do not find such arguments particularly convincing. Now, if all the facts about Jesus death, burial, empty tomb, the death of the Apostles, etc. was strongly established, I think one would have a very dangerous argument.

 

[Aquinas21]

Post 1, mgoforth – My general comment concerning post 1 is that Christianity does indeed have a genuine historical and literary basis. However, this is also true for other religions (and even mythologies to some extent), and of course the basic conclusion (in post 1, point 8) that “God exists” has also been shared by many philosophies and religions since time immemorial. So, I think that the special qualities and uniqueness of Christianity (in the 1st century and subsequently) become more apparent in terms of the actual Resurrection of Jesus (very important to the apostles) and subsequent developments and experiences in the early Church.

Post 16, tonyrey – “Countless people throughout the world have become Christians because the truth shines by its own light.” Very good!

 

[Bradski]

DA:

1. The Gospels aren’t a true account. They were written by Jesus’ followers, and thus were most likely biased towards him. Further, even if the Gospels were truly written by Jesus’ apostles, over time they would have been modified in generation after generation, with various myths added to them, including the miracles.
2. The Apostles could have been entirely convinced that Jesus was God. Jesus alone could have been the deceiver who fooled everyone into thinking he was God, by various tricks, and then of course the apostles would die for him; they really believed it.

The Apostles would have clarified among themselves what the Gospel message was, together, before preaching it to the world. Just because none of them had a different version of the story doesn’t mean that they weren’t all fooled.

1. (Same as first paragraph of 3.) The Apostles could have been entirely convinced that Jesus was God. Jesus alone could have been the deceiver who fooled everyone into thinking he was God, by various tricks, and then of course the apostles would die for him; they really believed it.

Thanks, dshix. Saved me some typing.

 

[Qoeleth]

I’m not the first to suggest this line of reasoning, but haven’t been able to find it presented in the forums anywhere. It’s one of my favorite “proofs” and really helped shore up my faith when I first read it. Any civilized responses are welcome.

1. It’s widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him to be a true historical person as well.
2. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.
3. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever recanted or altered the Gospel message.
4. It’s highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie. Really, what did any of them ever stand to gain from their efforts - besides eternal life of course?
5. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.
6. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.
7. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

Basically, you demonstrate that it is reasonable that the Gospel accounts are credible, and historical documents. Very true.

Logically, though, the problem is 4 and 5. It is not sufficient for something to be “highly unlikely” or “highly likely” in a logically argument. At best, it could prove that “God probably exists.”

Many “highly unlikely” things happen everyday. It is highly unlikely that September 11 should happen. It seems highly unlikely that Hitler could convince the German nation to follow him. Yet, they did happen.

There are many people who have endured terrible things, even death or torture, for various reasons (communism, fascism, militant environmentalism, etc.), but that does not prove such things are correct.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I so agree! I love that about the Faith I never thought of it as a proof, per se–how would one present that?

Just as I expressed it. I think anyone who reads the Scriptures, front to back will be convinced if they are honest.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

True, their death alone is not a proof per se. That’s why I used “proof” in quotes.

The OP’s points are intended to be taken in conjunction not in isolation…

A strong argument can’t be made from a sequence of weak premises. In terms of logic, if the OP’s 3 and 4 are removed on the basis that many men have been matryrs for disparate beliefs which can’t all be true, then you’d have to explain why 5 shouldn’t be rewritten “5. It’s highly likely that Jesus was suffering from mental illness.”

In any case their martyrdom may be as much legendary as real history. For instance James, patron saint of my country supposedly came to Spain, then returned to Jerusalem were he was decapitated by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12), then “his body was taken up by angels, and sailed in a rudderless, unattended boat to Iria Flavia in Iberia, where a massive rock closed around his relics”.

 

[inocente]

There is an important distinction to be made here though. That they were willing to die (not commenting on the historical support for this, take it as a given for this example), is a good indication that they were not following something they believed or knew to be a lie. It is evidence that they truly believed what they were saying instead of concocting some story about the resurrection of their teacher. The people you listed tend not to die for something they know to be a lie. Most if not all martyrs die for something they believe in as opposed to something they know to be false. I will allow that there may be occasional exceptions. However, let’s assume in this case that it is factually established that 11 of the 12 of them were martyred. While individuals in the past may have died for something they knew to be a lie, it does not happen often. When one takes into account that this was a group of 12 men (1 of which was supposedly exiled and 11 of which were supposedly martyred), and none of them are on the record for rejecting what they had been advancing, that provides compelling evidence that they truly believed it. When one also takes into account the fact that they had little to gain (not only everything to lose), the probability that they all were persecuted and mostly died for something they knew to be a lie becomes vanishingly small.

They did have something to gain though, because of their beliefs.

My big failing is I tend to look at the downside of arguments. I think the OP’s is of a kind which can backfire badly. A non-Christian could argue that even if the manner of their deaths could be verified historically, here was a small bunch of guys who radicalized each other, in a similar way to suicide bombers, Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate and so on, and then you have to get into a battle about how it’s different. Maybe better to avoid all that in the first place by not making that type of argument.

Now, frankly, I am not a fan of this type of argumentation (it is better than nothing, though). This is because history is really grey, and I frankly doubt one could easily convince a skeptic that the Gospels were:
a. written by Jesus’ immediate followers who were killed (at least not all of them)
b. relatively unblemished since their writing down in the late first century, and
c. accurate portrayals of what actually occurred.
I’ll admit, when it comes to history and Biblical scholarship, I am very weak on the apologetics front. Give me philosophy, give me science, but I really don’t know that much about history. Due to the lack of solid, empirical verification, I think history, while an important and meaningful endeavor, can hardly put up concrete-solid points. Maybe I am just biased, but that is they way I see it, and that is why I do not find such arguments particularly convincing. Now, if all the facts about Jesus death, burial, empty tomb, the death of the Apostles, etc. was strongly established, I think one would have a very dangerous argument.

Agreed, although maybe I’d go further and say the only thing that really counts is meeting God, as otherwise it’s all just theory.

 

[tonyrey]

A strong argument can’t be made from a sequence of weak premises. In terms of logic, if the OP’s 3 and 4 are removed on the basis that many men have been matryrs for disparate beliefs which can’t all be true, then you’d have to explain why 5 shouldn’t be rewritten “5. It’s highly likely that Jesus was suffering from mental illness.”

In any case their martyrdom may be as much legendary as real history. For instance James, patron saint of my country supposedly came to Spain, then returned to Jerusalem were he was decapitated by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12), then “his body was taken up by angels, and sailed in a rudderless, unattended boat to Iria Flavia in Iberia, where a massive rock closed around his relics”.

You need to justify the assertion:

“5. It’s highly likely that Jesus was suffering from mental illness.”

 

[tonyrey]

Post 1, mgoforth – My general comment concerning post 1 is that Christianity does indeed have a genuine historical and literary basis. However, this is also true for other religions (and even mythologies to some extent), and of course the basic conclusion (in post 1, point 8) that “God exists” has also been shared by many philosophies and religions since time immemorial. So, I think that the special qualities and uniqueness of Christianity (in the 1st century and subsequently) become more apparent in terms of the actual Resurrection of Jesus (very important to the apostles) and subsequent developments and experiences in the early Church.

Post 16, tonyrey – “Countless people throughout the world have become Christians because the truth shines by its own light.” Very good!

A point that has not been refuted by those who claim or insinuate that Jesus was mentally disturbed or even a lunatic…

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with all of your points and your train of thought, but would like to play Devil’s Advocate to help you out if you present this to someone in the real world. There are at least three points which a clear-thinking atheist would probably try to refute: 2-4.

---

DA:

1. The Gospels aren’t a true account. They were written by Jesus’ followers, and thus were most likely biased towards him. Further, even if the Gospels were truly written by Jesus’ apostles, over time they would have been modified in generation after generation, with various myths added to them, including the miracles.
2. The Apostles could have been entirely convinced that Jesus was God. Jesus alone could have been the deceiver who fooled everyone into thinking he was God, by various tricks, and then of course the apostles would die for him; they really believed it.

The Apostles would have clarified among themselves what the Gospel message was, together, before preaching it to the world. Just because none of them had a different version of the story doesn’t mean that they weren’t all fooled.

1. (Same as first paragraph of 3.) The Apostles could have been entirely convinced that Jesus was God. Jesus alone could have been the deceiver who fooled everyone into thinking he was God, by various tricks, and then of course the apostles would die for him; they really believed it.

---

Now, there are answers to all of these objections; if you can refute the objection against your second point, the rest naturally follows.

Where is the evidence that Jesus was a deceiver and what did He stand to gain?

 

[tonyrey]

There is an important distinction to be made here though. That they were willing to die (not commenting on the historical support for this, take it as a given for this example), is a good indication that they were not following something they believed or knew to be a lie. It is evidence that they truly believed what they were saying instead of concocting some story about the resurrection of their teacher. The people you listed tend not to die for something they know to be a lie. Most if not all martyrs die for something they believe in as opposed to something they know to be false. I will allow that there may be occasional exceptions. However, let’s assume in this case that it is factually established that 11 of the 12 of them were martyred. While individuals in the past may have died for something they knew to be a lie, it does not happen often. When one takes into account that this was a group of 12 men (1 of which was supposedly exiled and 11 of which were supposedly martyred), and none of them are on the record for rejecting what they had been advancing, that provides compelling evidence that they truly believed it. When one also takes into account the fact that they had little to gain (not only everything to lose), the probability that they all were persecuted and mostly died for something they knew to be a lie becomes vanishingly small.

Now, frankly, I am not a fan of this type of argumentation (it is better than nothing, though). This is because history is really grey, and I frankly doubt one could easily convince a skeptic that the Gospels were:
a. written by Jesus’ immediate followers who were killed (at least not all of them)
b. relatively unblemished since their writing down in the late first century, and
c. accurate portrayals of what actually occurred.
I’ll admit, when it comes to history and Biblical scholarship, I am very weak on the apologetics front. Give me philosophy, give me science, but I really don’t know that much about history. Due to the lack of solid, empirical verification, I think history, while an important and meaningful endeavor, can hardly put up concrete-solid points. Maybe I am just biased, but that is they way I see it, and that is why I do not find such arguments particularly convincing. Now, if all the facts about Jesus death, burial, empty tomb, the death of the Apostles, etc. was strongly established, I think one would have a very dangerous argument.

So how do you explain the historical origin of His teaching? Is all history bunk?

 

[paulrxp]

Unfortunately without faith, the only proof that satisfies all are what happened after the crucifiction.

We hear about miracles,prophecies and/or extraordinary claims all the time.
We hear of near death experiences. People who were declared clinically dead that medicine and science cannot explain. Most of the time clinically dead for a few minutes. At no point since Jesus has there been a claim that someone rose from the dead after a few days.

Perhaps we also have to keep in mind, that while logic is a wonderful method of thinking and explaining. There are lesser phenomena it can’t explain. I like Pascals argument when I discuss with my friends my views about God, and their views of why they don’t believe in God. It’s logical one I thought about on my own even before I learned about the argument.

• If I believe in God, after I die, and after God judges the living and the dead, because I believed, because I had faith, and I did my best to reject sin in how I lived my life in his name, my reward is eternal salvation.
• For my friends who don’t believe in God. If there is no God, then there is no eternal salvation for them, or myself. We(me and my friends) will cease to exist. in this sense, we’re equally in the state of nothing. However, and this is the most important thing, I achieve the same ends as them. In essense, lose nothing even though I was a believer, and they were not.
• Now if there is a God, they must endure eternal damnation, infinite suffering, misery,no redemption, no second chances. An all or nothing bet without reprieve .

Sound logic can lead you to making good decisions. It lets us mortals work with the best we have available, but it’s laws only apply to the sphere and the parameters of what we understand about our universe. There is something greater beyond this universe, and that is God.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:29[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks, dshix. Saved me some typing.

An uncritical approach is not to be recommended…

 

[tonyrey]

Unfortunately without faith, the only proof that satisfies all are what happened after the crucifiction.

We hear about miracles,prophecies and/or extraordinary claims all the time.
We hear of near death experiences. People who were declared clinically dead that medicine and science cannot explain. Most of the time clinically dead for a few minutes. At no point since Jesus has there been a claim that someone rose from the dead after a few days.

Perhaps we also have to keep in mind, that while logic is a wonderful method of thinking and explaining. There are lesser phenomena it can’t explain. I like Pascals argument when I discuss with my friends my views about God, and their views of why they don’t believe in God. It’s logical one I thought about on my own even before I learned about the argument.

• If I believe in God, after I die, and after God judges the living and the dead, because I believed, because I had faith, and I did my best to reject sin in how I lived my life in his name, my reward is eternal salvation.
• For my friends who don’t believe in God. If there is no God, then there is no eternal salvation for them, or myself. We(me and my friends) will cease to exist. in this sense, we’re equally in the state of nothing. However, and this is the most important thing, I achieve the same ends as them. In essense, lose nothing even though I was a believer, and they were not.
• Now if there is a God, they must endure eternal damnation, infinite suffering, misery,no redemption, no second chances. An all or nothing bet without reprieve .

Sound logic can lead you to making good decisions. It lets us mortals work with the best we have available, but it’s laws only apply to the sphere and the parameters of what we understand about our universe.

[bibledrb]John 20:29[/bibledrb]

Jesus does not imply that we have no reasons for believing His teaching. Why did He single out the beauty of the lilies?

 

[ccmnxc]

They did have something to gain though, because of their beliefs.

My big failing is I tend to look at the downside of arguments. I think the OP’s is of a kind which can backfire badly. A non-Christian could argue that even if the manner of their deaths could be verified historically, here was a small bunch of guys who radicalized each other, in a similar way to suicide bombers, Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate and so on, and then you have to get into a battle about how it’s different. Maybe better to avoid all that in the first place by not making that type of argument.

I’m not exactly sure where we are disagreeing here. Like I said, I think the point on martyrdom demonstrates they believed in what they were dying for (as opposed to knowing it to be a falsehood). For the sake of this individual point, it doesn’t matter how they came to believe. Are we still disagreeing here?

 

[tonyrey]

They did have something to gain though, because of their beliefs.

My big failing is I tend to look at the downside of arguments. I think the OP’s is of a kind which can backfire badly. A non-Christian could argue that even if the manner of their deaths could be verified historically, here was a small bunch of guys who radicalized each other, in a similar way to suicide bombers, Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate and so on, and then you have to get into a battle about how it’s different. Maybe better to avoid all that in the first place by not making that type of argument.

Agreed, although maybe I’d go further and say the only thing that really counts is meeting God, as otherwise it’s all just theory.

So what do you do in the meantime? Hedge your bets?

 

[tonyrey]

Just as I expressed it. I think anyone who reads the Scriptures, front to back will be convinced if they are honest.

Linus2nd

It depends on whether they accept the moral teaching of Jesus…

 

[tonyrey]

Countless people throughout the world have become Christians because the truth shines by its own light. An obscure carpenter brought up in a primitive society which advocated barbaric customs like an eye for an eye, animal sacrifice and stoning a woman to death for adultery has not only given us the greatest moral teaching known to mankind but He was also the embodiment of faith, hope and love throughout His life, trial and execution. If that is a myth **who invented it **and why does it correspond to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which are universally recognised as the only rational basis of civilization?

This question bears repetition as it has not been answered satisfactorily.

 

[inocente]

So what do you do in the meantime? Hedge your bets?

Pope Francis explains:

"Therefore, God you meet walking, on the journey. And at this point someone may say that this is relativism. Is it relativism? Yes, if it is intended as evil, as a kind of indistinct Pantheism. No, if understood in the biblical sense, by which God is always a surprise, and therefore we never know where and how we’ll find him, we can’t fix the time and place for meeting with him. We must therefore discern the meeting. For this discernment is critical.

I have one dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life, God is in the life of each. Even if a person’s life has been a disaster, if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in his life. You can and should seek in every human life. Even if a person’s life is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a place where the good seed can grow. You have to trust God."

laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/3216.pdf

 

[mgoforth]

They did have something to gain though, because of their beliefs.

Certainly heavenly glory, but I can’t think of much from a “worldly” point of view that they gained. Love and admiration from their fellow sufferers, but there are far easier ways to find worldly admiration.

My big failing is I tend to look at the downside of arguments. I think the OP’s is of a kind which can backfire badly. A non-Christian could argue that even if the manner of their deaths could be verified historically, here was a small bunch of guys who radicalized each other, in a similar way to suicide bombers, Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate and so on, and then you have to get into a battle about how it’s different. Maybe better to avoid all that in the first place by not making that type of argument.

I appreciate all the responses this is getting, but I disagree that it’s an argument better left unmade. I don’t think it backfires at all, quite the opposite, IF it serves to turn the conversation toward the moral character of suicide bombers, Jim Jones and other cult leaders, etc… vs the morals of men like St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John and the other Apostles, who at least dictated epistles and Gospels if they didn’t write them with their own hands. There is BTW reasonable evidence that many were in fact written extremely soon after the events they portray.

What I’m trying to say is that it’s a very weak counterargument to say “Well, anyone can die for a belief”. Yes, they can, but we’re not talking about just “anyone” here. These men reached the pinnacle of what we can hope to acheive in this world (with God’s great help of course). How so? They didn’t build great buildings or rule nations or invent revolutionary technologies. So what makes them the best? The same thing that made Christ the best - namely Love. They died while loving and praying for their executioners. They didn’t kill themselves, and they didn’t go out defiantly, which would characterize every other type of person mentioned in this counterargument. They went peacefully and willingly to their deaths. The one great “revenge” they hoped to have against their enemies was that their deaths might draw some of them over to Christ by witnessing their love.

Now I do agree that this argument could backfire badly, but only if the person presenting it failed to address the anticipated counter-arguments…and that’s really true for any logical debate isn’t it? The non-Christian response is easy to guess, but it also **helps **the main argument by forcing them to consider what type of people are worthy of imitation. If someone can’t manage to see that the Apostles were great men, then they may not be in a place currently to appreciate God’s peculiar wisdom. Allow me to share an appropriate passage:

*"When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature*, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 3:2-8

So if I explain the case “logically” according to God’s wisdom, which doesn’t always jive with the message of the world that non-believers are immersed in, some of them may see a light of Truth in my argument. That is a grace from God and has nothing to do with my persuasiveness. On the other hand, many will probably laugh at my claim that the Apostles were the world’s greatest men, but likewise no amount of persuasiveness from me is likely to sway such a person. There mind is already made up (for the time being), and all I can do is pray for them and allow God to work on them in His own way and in His own time.

I think that’s something I and others tend to forget when we get excited about apologetics. It’s not ultimately about us, it’s about God.