M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The more I hear about Dawkins’ logic, the more intellectually vapid I think he is.
- Status
P
Pete_1
Guest
Please then prove him wrong.
P
Pete_1
Guest
As John Henry Cardinal Newman said: 1000 difficulties do not make one doubtYou might want to consider the fact that the eyewitnesses didn’t just sit around and wait till anyone who might contradict their story died before speaking out; there is plenty of evidence that they spoke out and, before their martyrdom, convinced a lot of other people of the truth of their “wild story”.
But ultimately, if you decide you can’t believe it based on second-hand evidence, you’ll either have to accept the evidence as presented by someone whose opinion you trust in other matters - or, as many of us here have done, go through a bout of atheism.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it helps to clear out all the brush and plant some fresh seeds.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Let me take a shot at this.
To get past the weak link of eye witnesses who none of us personally knew even really existed then we have to look for current evidence.
What do we have now for a pool of possible evidence?
The other thing that I think gives credence to it all is that the Catholic Church for 2,000 years has persevered in its belief through heavy persecution and heresies. The first 13 or so popes and all but 1 apostle were all martyred rather than renounce their beliefs. We have many of their bones - these were real people who wanted to live and love just like you and I. Something made these people believe - and it had to have been more than just a new Johnny Come Lately story. The Jews has already seen many false Messiahs - but Jesus Christ was completely different.
Just some ideas - I don’t have time to further developed this right now.
Another passing thought that comes to mind is what Peter said to Jesus when many disciples left him after his “hard” teaching on eating his body and drinking his blood (John 6:66). Jesus asks - “will you too leave me?”. And Peter says “To who else shall we go Lord you have the words of Eternal Life?”. If this was all a mythological fabrication designed to make somone powerful and rich what is the motive for inventing a mythology that is made so wildly different and counter-culture to pagan Rome and corrupted Judaism to accept?
And do we explain the many artifacts of the True Cross, the spear tip that pierced Jesus, the Shroud of Turin etc. (and associated miracles) that all lend credibility to the history if it was all just a myth?
James
To get past the weak link of eye witnesses who none of us personally knew even really existed then we have to look for current evidence.
What do we have now for a pool of possible evidence?
- We have 2.1 billion Christians
- We have an apostolic Catholic Church and a Church History (include Orthodox here)
- We have completely competing religions such as Islam and Mormonism, and JHW that try to emulate or copy major themes
- We have highly plausible accounts of post resurrection miracles
- We have the Bible which came into its existence as a continuity of prior Scripture and which did not make full sense until after these “alleged” events happened
- We do have archaeological evidence and artifacts that prove many aspects of what is recorded in the bible (both OT and NT)
- We have reliable records of history that extends plausibility into the time frame that envelopes at least a part of the early church
- We have many Early Church Fathers writings.
The other thing that I think gives credence to it all is that the Catholic Church for 2,000 years has persevered in its belief through heavy persecution and heresies. The first 13 or so popes and all but 1 apostle were all martyred rather than renounce their beliefs. We have many of their bones - these were real people who wanted to live and love just like you and I. Something made these people believe - and it had to have been more than just a new Johnny Come Lately story. The Jews has already seen many false Messiahs - but Jesus Christ was completely different.
Just some ideas - I don’t have time to further developed this right now.
Another passing thought that comes to mind is what Peter said to Jesus when many disciples left him after his “hard” teaching on eating his body and drinking his blood (John 6:66). Jesus asks - “will you too leave me?”. And Peter says “To who else shall we go Lord you have the words of Eternal Life?”. If this was all a mythological fabrication designed to make somone powerful and rich what is the motive for inventing a mythology that is made so wildly different and counter-culture to pagan Rome and corrupted Judaism to accept?
And do we explain the many artifacts of the True Cross, the spear tip that pierced Jesus, the Shroud of Turin etc. (and associated miracles) that all lend credibility to the history if it was all just a myth?
James
P
Pete_1
Guest
Well I disallowed it because there have been martyrs in many religions.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Pete,
Just out of curiosity, do you take anything on faith?
Peace
Tim
Just out of curiosity, do you take anything on faith?
Peace
Tim
P
Pete_1
Guest
Of course - I am a Catholic, my question is why take anything on faith?
Why is reason not sufficient?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Because there are things that cannot be explained by reason. Miracles do not fit within reason. If we require reason we are limiting our faith to the realm of the natural and we exclude the supernatural. That isn’t faith. That is science.
Peace
Tim
D
davidv
Guest
Because not all truth is apprehended by reason. Some truth can only be provided by revelation - which is only accessible by faith.
P
Pete_1
Guest
Are you saying that the world cannot be explained without faith? Could you provide an example?
P
Pete_1
Guest
I think you might have misunderstood, have you read my other posts?
O
Orogeny
Guest
S
strngrnrth
Guest
An opinion is a guess, emotion or aesthetic taste.
A fact is a person, place, thing, event etc. in existence.
While people die for all kinds of opinions, how many assertions of witnessed physical fact produce a large number of eyewitnesses, a majority of whom would prefer any fate at all to denying what they saw?
Picture this: An airplane crashes. A hundred survivors emerge, each of whom says the plane went down after the pilot went into a tonic-clonic seizure. Twenty-three survivors saw the actual seizure take place, eight saw the entire sequence of events and all saw the crash itself and heard the shouting about the captain’s condition.
A lawyer for the pilot’s doctor pressures all the witnesses to retract their story, threatening many of them with their worst fears in this world, yet every single survivor’s story remains the same through a lengthy trial, in their interviews and memoirs and on talk shows, with variations limited to trivia such as how many peanuts the man in the next seat ate and how many times the attendant in front said “Whoa!”
Any judge or jury would accept this as overwhelming evidence.
A fact is a person, place, thing, event etc. in existence.
While people die for all kinds of opinions, how many assertions of witnessed physical fact produce a large number of eyewitnesses, a majority of whom would prefer any fate at all to denying what they saw?
Picture this: An airplane crashes. A hundred survivors emerge, each of whom says the plane went down after the pilot went into a tonic-clonic seizure. Twenty-three survivors saw the actual seizure take place, eight saw the entire sequence of events and all saw the crash itself and heard the shouting about the captain’s condition.
A lawyer for the pilot’s doctor pressures all the witnesses to retract their story, threatening many of them with their worst fears in this world, yet every single survivor’s story remains the same through a lengthy trial, in their interviews and memoirs and on talk shows, with variations limited to trivia such as how many peanuts the man in the next seat ate and how many times the attendant in front said “Whoa!”
Any judge or jury would accept this as overwhelming evidence.
D
davidv
Guest
Why not the trinity?
From the CCC
and
The world cannot understand the Trinity without revelation.
P
Pete_1
Guest
But why accept faith? You are using faith as an example of why one should accept faith.
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
Woops didn’t see that part. Still, I’m curious as to why you want us to exclude such answers? That’s one major point that sets the flying spaghetti monster apart from Jesus
P
Pete_1
Guest
Because of the existence of brainwashed cults that believe their leader is God.Woops didn’t see that part. Still, I’m curious as to why you want us to exclude such answers? That’s one major point that sets the flying spaghetti monster apart from Jesus
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
There is no credible account of the existence of the FSM. Nor are there credible accounts of the existence of unicorns. Both are mythical creatures, acknowledged as such.
Jesus actually existed. There are documented accounts of his life, his preaching, and his death by crucifiction noted not just in Christian sources, but in non-Christian sources of the time period that were very much opposed to the fledgling religion. I’m assuming that you accept the existence of Jesus Christ. Yet there is no evidence even to establish the existence of the FSM (or unicorns). So, you are comparing apples and oranges - “existence” versus “event.” Can we not agree that Jesus Christ, Son of Mary, was an actual person who lived on earth for a given time period?
The question is whether there is “proof” of the resurrection. Proof is a conclusion. In law, proof is made according to the burden imposed, by the presenting of evidence. Usually, the person who is prosecuting a certain conclusion is shouldered with the burden of proving that conclusion with evidence. In the case of Mr. Dawkins, he merely asserts the resurrection never happened. It is his burden to disprove the event with evidence. He does so by discounting (or dismissing) the testimony in favor of the event, but he offers no affirmative substantive evidence against the event having occurred, other than his own conclusion that the resurrection is impossible. Where is the evidence supporting his conclusion that such an event is impossible? I would say that Dawkins - even if he has successfully discounted the Apostles’ witness (which I do not think he has done) - has not met his burden of proof that Jesus did not rise.
On the other hand, I think there is evidence supporting the conclusion that Christ rose. Evidence can be direct or circumstantial. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence supporting the truth of the resurrection.
There is the testimony of those who saw him, recorded in the gospels. Their credibility was tested by physical torture and death, and they did not change their testimony - to a man. It may be credibly argued that 1 or 2 or 3 persons can be deluded into believing a lie, but 12, 14, or more? And that all of them would be so utterly deluded that they would suffer martyrdom for that mistaken belief? Certainly, that is far less likely to occur.
Plus there is evidence of the rise of the faith over persecution. Some would say that the rise of Christianity to overcome persecution after persecution is evidence of the truth of the claim to a risen Lord (the lynchpin of Christianity).
Plus, there is the witness of those who have seen the risen Lord by apparition, like the recently canonized St. Faustina. While not required to accept their veracity, Christian faithful can look to these apparitions as some circumstantial proof of the veracity of the Church in proclaiming the truth of the resurrection - i.e. that Jesus is who He said He was.
Similarly, there is the actuality of unexplained phenomenon supporting the truth of the Christian faith… Miracles. While one may argue for natural yet unexplained causes for these phenomenon, or that their occurrence is not tied to the veracity of Church teaching, another plausible conclusion is that they are what they appear to be - signs to the faithfull that what they believe - including the belief in the resurrection - is true.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient evidence and should not be discounted based soley upon one’s preconceived notions regarding what is possible.
Peace,
-Robert
R
rpp
Guest
So you want us to provide proof without us being able to provide proof.
This is not logical. Clearly the proof of Christ’s resurrection lies in the fact that Christianity grew in spite of persecutions specifically because people saw that Christ rose from the dead and were willing to die for it.
No one has seen Dawkins invention. People have seen Christ. They saw him perform dozens of recorded miracles and perhaps hundreds of unrecorded miracles. They saw him rise from the dead and later ascend into Heaven. Thousands of miracles have been recorded and verified over the centuries.
The flying spaghetti monster has not done any of this because it does not exist.
- Status