It is all about evidence

[Yetzirah]

God can never be proven because God is the very existence and consciousness itself and to subtle to objectively “grab” and observe. If it was possible to grab existence itself, put it under the microscope, than it would not be existence itself.
However the quantum shows that the prime forces that underlies all of reality is non-material. But God is also in all places at the sametime in all time.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hearsay evidence is sometimes accepted in certain, un-important cases. But never in important ones. So the conclusion is that there is no evidence for the claims of religion. They all must be accepted on faith – blind faith. Can anyone refute this?

O.K., now you’ve offered to point out the evidence Catholics offer that God does exist. Now would you like to point out the evidence that God does not exist? There is none. Zip, Nada, Zero.

So I would not be so cocky about atheism when you can’t explain why the most important concept in your life is true.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Likely true, Thomas Jefferson accepted the wisdom of the New Testament, but removed all the supernatural and miracles, and he was one of our great thinkers.

He did not remove all of the sense of the supernatural in his life. As a matter of fact he argued for the existence of God in a letter to John Adams in which he refuted the claims of atheism. Weeks before his death he wrote a poem to his daughter expressing his hope that they and others of the family would all someday meet on the other side.

Jefferson was a fine (not a great) political thinker and writer. His interests as a young man and through his presidency were decidedly secular. But as a senior citizen one notices a shift toward his occupation with the eternal verities. Whether he died accepting Jesus as his savior we cannot know. But I certainly don’t think he has to be regarded as an enemy of Christianity. Indeed, while he was ambassador to France, he aranged for his daughter to live at a convent, so confident he was that she was safer with nuns than with the average French playboy.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I find there are two key themes when responding to those who claim…“there’s no evidence for God” or “thats not evidence”.

1. What exactly is the evidence in question, evidence of?
2. How persuasive is the evidence in the matter to which it relates?

All too many counter-apologists and anti-theists say there is ‘‘no evidence’’ for God/theism when what they really mean is… no evidence which they themselves find persuasive.

And such people are often methodologically committed to naturalism and scientism/empiricism so they usually expect evidence which is repeatable and testable on demand. Thus, if they hear about ghosts or someone rising from the dead they demand an immediate repeat performance and wont accept “hearsay” testimony from honest people. And they wont accept corroboration testimony from multiple ‘‘believers’’ who shared a common experience of divinity.

The irony is that if they themselves experienced the type of sensory evidence of which persuaded Saul of Tarsus, and if they concluded it was real not imaginary, none of their former atheist friends would believe THEIR testimony.

The strong atheist is entitled to say that they find claims and assertions of evidence/fact about God and the afterlife unpersuasive, but they cannot compel others to agree with their myopic definition of what constitutes “evidence”.

 

[Lion_IRC]

When the strong atheist says there is no empirical evidence for God, I imagine a person fishing for sardines using a shark net. When they continually catch only large fish, they conclude there’s no persuasive evidence for the existence of sardines. But as Abraham Maslow said…when the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail.

Looking for God with the tools of empirical science – the telescope, the microscope, the durometer, the vernier, the cash register – seems a bit naïve to me.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

I would simply pose the question to the original poster of “Why would Christianity have started in the first place if it weren’t true”? Money? Prestige? Mental Illness? Early Christianity was not about money, though modern day secularists and atheists like to use money as the reason for the Catholic Church and other religions. Why would Jesus have sacrificed himself? Insanity? Why would his disciples have stood by their beliefs under constant persecution and even death (martyrdom) to build the Church? Why would Christianity spread from a small part of the Middle East to a global belief? Now an obvious retort to this is Islam. Wouldn’t the same questions apply to Islam? No. ONE MAN, Jesus Christ, proclaimed to be our Savior. Mohammed was a prophet, if anything, and not God. We have been warned that there would be false religions, and they are uncountable. Just because they ALL aren’t right though, doesn’t mean ONE isn’t right. Yes, religion has existed in many forms in all areas of the globe throughout all of history. So why would Christianity be “right”, and the rest “false”? Simply because the rest involve beliefs and dogmas that go against human nature, a nature instilled in us by The Creator, God. Killing, for example, is against nature. Many of these other religions advocate killing, whether by sacrifice, or of unbelievers. Only Christianity offers salvation and mercy. Christianity is LOVE. Why would anyone actually want this life to be “our one and only chance”, with no eternal soul or afterlife? How depressing! What a horrible way to live, thinking that all of your thoughts, memories, feelings, relationships, will all evaporate into nothing in a moment of death. How can one even believe that? Especially considering these are parts of your spirit, and not based in matter. Oh yes, there are many things we don’t understand about God, that we never could. We are expected to have Faith in these mysteries. Why? Why not? You can’t prove a negative, like God not existing, especially when we are told right up front that we won’t necessarily understand it all. I choose to Believe. Sometimes I have doubts and questions myself, but I think that’s part of being human. I think its important to understand that science and “evidence” NEVER contradicts the possibility of God. NEVER. But saying God definitively doesn’t exist because there is no scientific evidence is the height of human arrogance, especially considering how much there is in this universe that our limited 21st century human science can’t come close to explaining.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Do mathematical proofs prove their case? Of course!

Of course, not! One cannot have or demand empirical evidence for the claims of abstract sciences.

Mathematical proofs do not prove? LOL! Oh, my… don’t tell that to a mathematician! Now, let’s be precise: mathematical proofs do not prove through empirical evidence, but they certainly do prove their cases! It seems you’ve completely missed my point: you ask for empirical evidence for God; I am demonstrating that not all proofs call for empirical evidence to irrefutably prove their cases.

As I already said a few times: the more important, the more serious the claim is, we demand more reliable evidence for it. Stands to reason, I would say.

I appreciate the fact that you’ve claimed it; however, I think it’s not only poorly stated, but it’s also not at all proven by you. I would assert that mathematical theorems are quite serious and important – after all, much of science depends on them! Yet, there is no expectation that “reliable evidence” must exist for them. We’re talking past one another here, I’m afraid. I’m demonstrating that empirical evidence isn’t the end-all and be-all that you suspect that it is, while you’re simply repeating your unsubstantiated assertions about “serious claims.”

Actually, it is. When it comes to claims about the external reality, the only acceptable method to establish the claim is to present an epistemological method to verify (and/or falsify) the claim. It does not need to be a “physical” process, only something that can be repeated and verified (or falsified).

Agreed. Yet, what you’re asking for isn’t consonant with your claims about science. You see, the basis of the scientific method is that the physical universe acts consistently – an experiment, properly conducted, is repeatable. You make no assertions that God’s interactions with the physical universe are repeatable – yet, you require believers to demonstrate an experiment that proves God’s existence. You see the problem in your request, don’t you? Without repeatability – that is, without the expectation that given a set of (name removed by moderator)uts, the outputs must follow predictably – the entire notion of experimentation is irrational. The “epistemological method” you ask for, but do not supply, requires this predictability; but believers in God do not make this claim about God’s interactions with the world. Therefore, there’s no expectation that it can be tested, per se.

And such claims are presented by believers. They assert the efficacy of prayers. Yet, when one conducts a properly established, double-blind experiment, the claim is not substantiated.

That would depend on what you mean by ‘efficacy.’ Do you mean it in a medical sense? That’s not the sense that believers offer, I would assert. When people tell you that you’re espousing a “slot machine” approach to God, that’s what they mean – they’re telling you that you’re asserting that ‘efficacy’ means “I put in my coins, and God pays out.” That’s not what believers believe…

There are two problems with this approach. God and Jesus are supposed to alive and active today, quite unlike Hannibal.

Agreed; but you’ll have to define what you mean by ‘active’ in order to proceed.

So to offer similar kinds of “evidence” is incorrect.

I’m thinking about the claims of Jesus’ life that are found in the Bible.

Besides, I hope you do not say that the alleged miracles performed by Jesus are established equally well as Hannibal’s crossing the Alps.

In fact, I might ask you why you think the historical references to Hannibal are more trustworthy than those to Jesus! I might assert the case differently: I hope you do not say that Hannibal’s alleged crossing of the Alps is established equally well as Jesus’ miracles!

PS: I would like to point out that it is against the forum rules to “answer” a question with a “counter-question”.

Really? Perhaps you can show me where that’s stated in the forum rules…?

Make an answer first, and then you will be in the position to present a counter-question.

I see that you don’t work well with subtlety. Ok then: my entire post was an exercise in demonstrating that your requirement for “empirical evidence” doesn’t hold up: it is not the standard in mathematical theorem, nor is it the only standard in, for example, court cases (in which witness evidence is admissible). Therefore, your assertions do not hold. My ‘questions’, as they were, are only the means by which I am leading you through the argument I’m making.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…oh but Lion IRC, you have it all wrong. We atheists don’t have any burden of proof. You do. You are the one who has to prove that God exists.

Nope. I don’t need to prove God exists. I have all the evidence I need of that fact and I’m content with what I know even if you don’t find that evidence of His existence persuasive.

If atheists don’t want to shoulder any burden of proof, that’s fine with me.

They can continue to remain unpersuasive for as long as they like.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

*…
If atheists don’t want to shoulder any burden of proof, that’s fine with me.

They can continue to remain unpersuasive for as long as they like. *

This is why I find talking to atheists so tedious. They never shoulder the burden of proving anything. They raise questions about faith, but they never acknowledge their own uncertainty about atheism. There simply is nothing in atheism that makes it self evident unless you can believe it is self evident that nothing exists except the universe. That is far from self evident. It is a matter of pure and unadultered faith for which there is no evidence whatever.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

They can continue to remain unpersuasive for as long as they like.

This I can understand. I expressed something that I think to be similar in another thread some time ago. If some one makes a claim and doesn’t care whether or not some one believes it or takes it seriously then there is no burden. I would say there is a burden on the person that wants to convince others.

…]Some one making a claim is generally not obligated to provide evidence for that claim. …] Whether or not effort is take to provide the person with additional information may depend on other factors. A primary factor may be “Do I care if my audience believes me.” Some times the answer to that is “no.” I present the claim here that “I live in the Metro Atlanta area of Georgia, USA.” If some one in these forums doesn’t believe that I’m totally fine with that (apathetic) and will let their disbelief continue without making any effort to convince him/her. If I make the claim that “My neighbor broke into my house” to a court of law chances are I’ve got additional motivations that may move me to provide more information and evidence.

Sometimes one makes a religious claim for which I’ve got no strong attachment and the person making the claim doesn’t care whether or not I believe it, such as “Lord Ganesha is the god of beginnings” or “The Archangel Michael took human form as Jesus Christ.” Since the person speaking doesn’t seem to care if I believe him/her or not and since I take the statement as an idio-attribute it is conversation with no burden. Now if I want to convince some one of something there’s a burden that comes along with that. If some one wants to convince me of something then that person has a burden to do so. When no one cares whether or not any one is convinced then there’s no burden at all

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]unless you can believe it is self evident that nothing exists …]

Nothing does exist. I found it available for 0.99 USD plush shipping and handling!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are ongoing threads about God’s existence, one of them having the title: “Why do you believe in God”? One can see assertions like: “There is a ton of evidence for… ”. Rather then to derail those threads, I would like to explore the problem of “evidence” on its own right…

I will address your comments paragraph by paragraph. But first I want you to go to the thread above called Starry Proof of God’s Existence - Fantastic and take a look. I can’t give you the argument in detail but you can watch the presentation tomorrow on EWTN at 8 A.M. CST, U.S. You can view EWTN on your computer. Or you can buy the DVD for $10.
But the author has found the Star of Bethleham and traced its prophecy form its first mention in the Old Testament to the Book of Revelation. It amounts to a scientific proof. But don’t take my word for it.

Par 2. Not all evidence given is " hearsay. " The best evidence for the validity of the Revelation given in the Bible is the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves. All you have to do is read it yourself. Further, the evidence establishes the factual existence of the Jewish Scriptures and their prophecy of a Redeemer. The fulfillment of that prophecy is evident in the New Testament. Again look to the internal evidence of the books themselves. Consider all the events of the Old and New Testaments, consider the way they fit together, consider the events, consider the God they reveal and the message. Do you really think this is a concoction of the human intellect, do you believe the human intellect capable of concocting what is in the Scriptures? The Greeks, the greatest intellects of the Old Testament period, were unable to do it, and they could conceive of no greater Being than an Unmoved Mover.

So the " hearsay " evidence in the Scriptures cannot be dismissed so easily. These men were witnessing something the human intellect could not make up nor understand. To the witnesses themselves, it was incomprehensible. And this is true from the very beginning of the Old Testament through the New.

Third para:
And not all evidence needs to be verifiable. What about philosophical arguments? Do you really think the universe can account for its own existence? Do you think it can account for the existence of mind, conscience? Can it account for the intertwined order and teleology of universe? The inability of the universe to account for these things amounts to valid evidence for the existence of God.

The last part of your paragraph is not to the point. Obviously, if God exists and if He is a Spiritual, non-material being, we could not see Him interacting. And yes, God allows evil things to happen and you know why. Your problem here is that you want God to be like you want Him to be, you do not want to make the effort to place trust in Him , that He knows what He is doing. Obviously, if He made the universe, He knows more than we do, He knows what is good for us in the long run. Who are we to question His Wisdom. We can hardly put our pants on in the morning and we are so bold to tell Him how to run things. That is real hutzpah. We can’t make a single hair grow on our head and we think we can we can judge the King of the universe. Are you any better off at the end of the day by thinking that God doesn’t exist? Is the world any better off?

5th Para.

The power of prayer has been proven throughout history. Miracles abound in the lives of the Saints. And many believers attest to its power and effects in their own lives. How else do you explain that some people are able to live really holy lives. 'Believe me it can’t be done without prayer. That is evidence enough for the Wise.

6th para
I think you are suffering from sower grapes here. As you know, the moral teaching of the Church is based on Natural Law. That is evidence enough for the Wise. The Wiseman doesn’t need to have a picture drawn. And obviously, if Christ created a Church, as He claimed, it needs infallible leadership. That is the purpose of Tradition. Again, that should be clear to the Wise. We are sorry for the skeptics.

7th para.

If you are talking about the " Witnesses " in the Bible or in the Tradition of the Church, there is no reason to doubt them. They were solid individuals with nothing personal to gain. And they were holy people. That should be proof enough for the Wise.

8th para
Obviously you give too much credit to scientists. Besides, I am not asking them to lead me to God, I merely ask them to make a car that runs reasonably well, etc.

Philosophical evidence does not amount to blind faith. The proofs I have suggested so far do not lead to " blind faith, " they lead to solid certitude, not absolute, but enough that Faith becomes reasonable. After all, what good is faith if God has to hit you on the head with a hammer? God expets us to trust Him. That is faith.

9th para

That doesn’t amount to an argument against Faith or Christianity. Not worth discussing.

10th para

Ditto.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God can never be proven because God is the very existence and consciousness itself and to subtle to objectively “grab” and observe. If it was possible to grab existence itself, put it under the microscope, than it would not be existence itself.
However the quantum shows that the prime forces that underlies all of reality is non-material. But God is also in all places at the sametime in all time.

I see you do not understand Quantum Mechanics. " Prime forces " are not immaterial. Even waves and energy are material. If they were not, they could not be detected or measured or quantified.

It is true however that we cannot " prove " absolutely that God exists. However, we can offer " reasons " for His existence that are so powerful that it is unreasonable to doubt that He exists. That is what the Catholic Church has always taught. However the Catholic Church has not left us in a state of doubt, it has Solemnly declared De Fide, that God exists based on the evidence of Divine Revelation.

Linus2nd

 

[Jewel34]

MPat:

You know, Pascal’s Wager is supposed to show that it is in those cases when we should direct the presumption in the other way… That is, to “err on the side of caution”.

Pascal’s wager is one of the worst attempts to establish God.

MPat:

Yet the thread was not started by “most atheists”, it was started by you. What do you think…?

I consider the concept of God as partially undefined, also logically incoherent, and contradictory. But my beliefs are not relevant here.
Lion IRC:

All too many counter-apologists and anti-theists say there is ‘‘no evidence’’ for God/theism when what they really mean is… no evidence which they themselves find persuasive.

Since the only “evidence” is hearsay, that is the rational approach. You could equally say that there is “evidence” for Santa Klaus, but skeptics do not find it persuasive.
Lion IRC:

Thus, if they hear about ghosts or someone rising from the dead they demand an immediate repeat performance and wont accept “hearsay” testimony from honest people. And they wont accept corroboration testimony from multiple ‘‘believers’’ who shared a common experience of divinity.

You commit the fallacy of “argumentum ad numeram”. The number of people is not relevant. Zillions of children honestly believe in the existence of Santa Klaus, but their number (and honesty) means nothing.
Lion IRC:

Why would Jesus have sacrificed himself? Insanity? Why would his disciples have stood by their beliefs under constant persecution and even death (martyrdom) to build the Church?

This is another example of legend (or hearsay “evidence”).

Gorgias:

Mathematical proofs do not prove?

Misunderstanding, sorry. There are 3 facets of reality: 1) the external, objectively existing physical universe; 2) the abstractions about it, and 3) the alleged events of history. The believers assert that there is a 4th facet, some non-physical, yet physically active “spiritual” reality. These facets have (or should have) their own epistemological methods. The physical reality has the so-called scientific method. The abstract sciences have the axioms and the rules of transformation (only this process is called “proving”). Historical claims are substantiated by either physical evidence (a volcano erupted in some year… see the physical evidence left behind) or some documents left behind. These documents could have been left behind by eye-witnesses, or other people, who did not witness the events, merely heard of them. We judge the claims more reliable if the identity of the observers is known, if they have other writs, which could be verified, if the witnesses are independent, and if the witnesses have different, contrasting “agenda”.

What does the “non-physical”, yet physically active “reality” offer as evidence? The result of the alleged activity is physical, so it is subject to the scientific method (for example fulfilled prayers, or miraculous healings), and yet all those double blind experiments fail to establish their claim. So the claimants point to some historical “evidence”, usually the Bible, which is a collection of documents of unknown authors, written many decades after the alleged events, all written with the same agenda put together by the Catholic Church (using a voting mechanism to separate the goat from the sheep). There is no external corroboration to any of “special”, “miraculous” events. It is typical of any other “legend”.

Gorgias:

You make no assertions that God’s interactions with the physical universe are repeatable

It is not I, who came up with the idea that “ask and the door will be opened” (and the similar claims). Why do you blame me, when I take the believers at their word?

Gorgias:

I’m thinking about the claims of Jesus’ life that are found in the Bible.

Which “Bible” was put together by the Catholic Church.

Gorgias:

Really? Perhaps you can show me where that’s stated in the forum rules…?

Sure thing. Read it here:

Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pascal’s wager is one of the worst attempts to establish God.

I consider the concept of God as partially undefined, also logically incoherent, and contradictory. But my beliefs are not relevant here.

Since the only “evidence” is hearsay, that is the rational approach. You could equally say that there is “evidence” for Santa Klaus, but skeptics do not find it persuasive.

You commit the fallacy of “argumentum ad numeram”. The number of people is not relevant. Zillions of children honestly believe in the existence of Santa Klaus, but their number (and honesty) means nothing.

This is another example of legend (or hearsay “evidence”).

Misunderstanding, sorry. There are 3 facets of reality: 1) the external, objectively existing physical universe; 2) the abstractions about it, and 3) the alleged events of history. The believers assert that there is a 4th facet, some non-physical, yet physically active “spiritual” reality. These facets have (or should have) their own epistemological methods. The physical reality has the so-called scientific method. The abstract sciences have the axioms and the rules of transformation (only this process is called “proving”). Historical claims are substantiated by either physical evidence (a volcano erupted in some year… see the physical evidence left behind) or some documents left behind. These documents could have been left behind by eye-witnesses, or other people, who did not witness the events, merely heard of them. We judge the claims more reliable if the identity of the observers is known, if they have other writs, which could be verified, if the witnesses are independent, and if the witnesses have different, contrasting “agenda”.

What does the “non-physical”, yet physically active “reality” offer as evidence? The result of the alleged activity is physical, so it is subject to the scientific method (for example fulfilled prayers, or miraculous healings), and yet all those double blind experiments fail to establish their claim. So the claimants point to some historical “evidence”, usually the Bible, which is a collection of documents of unknown authors, written many decades after the alleged events, all written with the same agenda put together by the Catholic Church (using a voting mechanism to separate the goat from the sheep). There is no external corroboration to any of “special”, “miraculous” events. It is typical of any other “legend”.

It is not I, who came up with the idea that “ask and the door will be opened” (and the similar claims). Why do you blame me, when I take the believers at their word?

Which “Bible” was put together by the Catholic Church.

Sure thing. Read it here:

You have about 9 minutes to tune into EWTN to watch that video I mentioned in post 32, I would like to get your reaction. ewtn.com/index.asp?myselection=us

Go to " Television, " click on United States and watch.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

In that respect he wasn’t wise. The life, death and teaching of Jesus are an integrated whole and cannot be fully understood in isolation. He put into practice what He preached and told us to follow His example.

1, You haven’t explained the origin of Christ’s wisdom or teaching.
2. His life, suffering and death corresponded in great detail to His teaching and predictions.
3. His teaching has survived two thousand years because it is true.
4. It has survived two thousand years because He founded an international community.
5. It is accepted by all civilised persons throughout the world.
6. It is the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
7. The Gospels focus on different aspects of His life and have the ring of authenticity because the testimony of witnesses is often inaccurate with regard to past events.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You commit the fallacy of “argumentum ad numeram”. The number of people is not relevant. Zillions of children honestly believe in the existence of Santa Klaus, but their number (and honesty) means nothing.

Actually, you are confusing “beliefs” with “witness” or direct experience.

In a court of law, witnesses are not questioned about their beliefs, but rather about what they honestly saw, heard or otherwise directly experienced. The testimony of witnesses does count and the more witnesses there are the better, because by reconciling the different perspectives an accurate depiction of the event can be reconstructed.

Often, testimonies are not identical precisely because the points of view, attention to detail, expertise in certain areas, etc., will give each witness a particular scope or set of lenses through which they experience the event.

So, the number of credible people who claim to directly experience an event is important. Believing in the existence of Santa Claus is not the same as having a direct experience of Santa Claus. The reason the direct experiences of Santa Claus by “zillions of children” is discounted is because it is a known fact that “zillions” of individuals dressed as Santa make their appearances around Christmas.

I would suggest that if “zillions of children” claimed independently to have witnessed little green alien creatures in their rooms on Christmas night, adults around the world would treat that claim very seriously and endeavor to find the reasons for it.

If one person claims to have seen an alien being at night on a dark road, that claim might be dismissed, relatively easily. However, if the population of an entire town of sane individuals all claim to have had a direct experience of an alien ship landing, that kind of claim, involving, as it does, many eyewitnesses would be treated seriously.

Argumentum ad numeram is not applicable to direct testimony, it is only applicable to reasoning. Many people might be illogical and conclude wrongly from given premises, but many individuals do not, typically, err about direct perceptual experiences.

This is another example of legend (or hearsay “evidence”).

Again, you are miscasting the Gospels and the direct experiences of believers as hearsay evidence, when, in fact, most of these, and, in particular, the Gospels, were eye witness accounts. Even if they were scribed by a third party, that does not make the testimony hearsay, just as a police officer recording the testimonies of witnesses does not make the written testimony hearsay.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Pascal’s wager is one of the worst attempts to establish God.
here:

Wrong again. This argument of Pascal does not establish god. It establishes the need to believe in God, Since it is one of the best arguments for that purpose (not even the great logician Bertrand Russell attacked it) you think that by calling it the worst attempt you have proven something? Perhaps what you have proven is that you fear this argument more than all the others put together.

No doubt on your deathbed it will suddenly ring self evident and true?

As it has for so many atheists who spent their life mocking God.

 

[Area_Man]

We have to back up a couple steps and talk about the difference between belief and knowledge. When a person says, “I believe x,” I can question them by saying “**why **do you believe that.” When a person says “I know x,” I can respond with “**how **do you know that?” Beliefs do not have to be justified to the same level that knowledge has to be justified.

Often times people like to conflate belief with knowledge. It’s common to hear people make fallacious claims like ‘I have enough reasons to believe x, therefore x must be true,’ or 'the stronger I believe in x the more likely it is to be true. This is why faith is not a reliable path to knowledge.

A personal example is that I believe that there is life on other planets. I have reasons why I believe this, but my reasons are not evidence. My reasons may or may not be convincing to you. I do not know if there is life on other planets. The only way my belief can become knowledge is with testable evidence and the proper application of the scientific method.

I don’t mind if people believe in God. What I do mind is when people who** believe** that God exists then claim that they know how God wants them to vote, or which public policies should be accepted or rejected. Your beliefs are not justification to limit my freedoms.

Do you believe that God exists or do you know that God exists? Why do you believe? How do you know?

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

originally posted by Jewel34

Why would Jesus have sacrificed himself? Insanity? Why would his disciples have stood by their beliefs under constant persecution and even death (martyrdom) to build the Church?

This is another example of legend (or hearsay “evidence”).

Which part? The crucifixion under Pontius Pilate? Jesus’ existence in the first place? Jewish historian Josephus confirms Jesus Christ’s existence in Antiquities of the Jews. So starting from there, the recounting of Jesus’ life in the Gospels written by multiple sources but based on eyewitness accounts can hardly be deemed a legend.

All of human history from ancient times is based on recountings of what happened passed on through the ages. There was certainly no video evidence. There is archeology, oral recounting, and written recounting. All of these things apply to Jesus Christ.

And the martyrdom of hundreds if not thousands of early Christians, aka disciples, for their beliefs is certainly verifiable fact.