It is all about evidence

[Gorgias]

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.

Certainly, they do. Why do you insist that the ‘4th facet’ abide by the epistemological methods of other ‘facets of reality’? That would seem to be a logical error…

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

Agreed. So then, a proof of the existence of God (which is what I presume you’re discussing here, and not only the more limited question of what ‘efficacy of prayer’ means) that is experimental in nature must posit predictability and repeatability – or else the experimental method is flawed and useless. There’s no assertion that you’re making here that any such assertions about predictability and repeatability exist; therefore, there’s no proposal on the table for a valid experiment. In other words… since there’s no proposal for a valid experiment, there’s no opportunity to posit a ‘null result’ that disproves God’s existence.

(for example fulfilled prayers, or miraculous healings), and yet all those double blind experiments fail to establish their claim.

If the claim is “all prayers for miraculous healings lead to healing”, then you’re correct. Yet, that’s a claim that only non-believers make; believers interpret their sacred texts differently. How is it that you have the corner on proper interpretation of Scripture?

So the claimants point to some historical “evidence”, usually the Bible, which is a collection of documents of unknown authors

‘Unknown’? Hardly. Are we talking about the New Testament here?

written many decades after the alleged events

compiled in writing decades after the events, but not created from scratch decades afterward. Big difference…

all written with the same agenda put together by the Catholic Church (using a voting mechanism to separate the goat from the sheep)

The ‘voting mechanism’ of which you speak was not “this is what our current position is”, but rather, “this is what the Church has always taught.” This is a critical difference – it is the difference between “let’s make sure that we create a coherent story” and “let’s make sure that we continue to tell the story that’s been consistently told”.

There is no external corroboration to any of “special”, “miraculous” events. It is typical of any other “legend”.

And what ‘external corroboration’ do you propose is reasonable, given the ‘underground’ nature of the early Church? Standing up and asking for official recognition would have been counter-productive and suicidal.

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?

Again… your Scriptural interpretation against the Church’s. Why does yours take precedence? Why is yours the only reasonable one against which claims are judged?

Sure thing. Read it here:

Thanks. I was looking in the ‘forum rules’, not the guidelines for one of the fora. However, I do know the answer, and am not trying to obfuscate, but rather, to get you to answer your own questions. If you were to ask “why does 2*3=6” and I responded “what is 2+2+2?”, I think that’s a different case than responding “why don’t you know the answer yourself?”…

 

[Contarini]

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.

I’m not quite sure what you mean in this paragraph. I think that William James’ reworking of Pascal’s wager in The Will to Believe is sounder than Pascal’s original version. The valid point in both versions is that not believing is a choice too. In matters of ultimate commitment there is no merely negative choice.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not quite sure what you mean in this paragraph. I think that William James’ reworking of Pascal’s wager in The Will to Believe is sounder than Pascal’s original version. The valid point in both versions is that not believing is a choice too. In matters of ultimate commitment there is no merely negative choice.

Edwin

I mean what I said. How do I say it plainer?

What I find difficult to understand is the point you are trying to make. Why do you say William James’ version is sounder than Pascal’s?

 

[Jewel34]

Charlemagne III:

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

If you try to become a “prophet” making predictions about my deathbed, I suggest not to give up your day gig yet. I am already past my “death-bed”, having been dragged back from clinical death after a nice heart-attack, and let me tell you, “repenting” was the furthest thing from my mind. How many times will this nonsense: “on your death bed you will recant!!!” come up?
Charlemagne III:

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

*** Sigh ***. I am not “mocking” God. I am pointing out the irrational propositions about God. Can you comprehend the difference?

guiltyofdoubt:

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.

There were many crucifixions back then. It was a barbaric, but common method of execution. There were many people called Yeshua (Jesus) in those times. It was a very common name. There is one sentence in Josephus’ text, commonly held to be a later insertion by historians. There was no evidence of “walking on water”, “healing sick people”, “expelling demons”, etc… all part of the legend.

Gorgias:

Certainly, they do. Why do you insist that the ‘4th facet’ abide by the epistemological methods of other ‘facets of reality’? That would seem to be a logical error…

To my best recollection I only asked for some epistemological method. But since the “spiritual” realm is alleged to interact with the physical reality both ways (!) it is very reasonable to demand physical evidence for the interaction.

Gorgias:

If the claim is “all prayers for miraculous healings lead to healing”, then you’re correct.

There are several, mutually exclusive claims. Some assert unconditionally that “ask and your request will be fulfilled”, while others say that “if God deems it right”, then your request will be fulfilled. Of course it is always good “hedging the bets”. Even a less than 100%, but statistically significant result would interesting to consider.

Gorgias:

compiled in writing decades after the events, but not created from scratch decades afterward.

Orally transmitted stories are called “hearsay” evidence.

Gorgias:

And what ‘external corroboration’ do you propose is reasonable, given the ‘underground’ nature of the early Church?

You mean that God established the church and was unable / unwilling to protect it? There were allegedly “thousands” healed and no one noticed? People resurrected, and no one cared?

Gorgias:

The ‘voting mechanism’ of which you speak was not “this is what our current position is”, but rather, “this is what the Church has always taught.”

Does not matter. The New Testament was “cherry-picked” from a whole lot of documents, selected by the members of the church. And then it is asserted that it contains the “inerrant” word of God.

Gorgias:

Again… your Scriptural interpretation against the Church’s.

I don’t interpret, only the church does. Funny that during the last 2000 years the church never found the time to create a “Catholic Annotated Bible”, which would separate the literally accurate parts from the allegorically “accurate” ones.

 

[ccmnxc]

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

Well, I think I’ve found next year’s Christmas gifts

 

[ccmnxc]

As I said above, the philosophical arguments could never establish the God of Christianity. So called private “revelations” are not accepted even by the Church, so they are not evidence of anything.

So as to avoid writing a cyber-dissertation on Thomistic metaphysics, I’ll just point out what Thomas (and many other writers) spend thousands of combined pages explaining, namely, the attributes of God (I’d recommend Feser’s Aquinas and then Summa Contra Gentiles to get a better notion of this). Say we go with the First Way and come to a being who is pure actuality. What can we establish from that. Well, this being must be unique since pure actuality contains no potentiality. If there were two beings of pure actuality, one would have potentialities the other would not. Since pure actuality automatically rules out potentiality of any kind, there can only be one of these beings. Also, since God is pure actuality, He has either the eminent or formal ability to actualize anything else, giving Him what we’d consider to be omnipotence. Given the privation view of evil, which Thomists defend, God cannot contain any evil at all since evil is privation, which is potentiality, which is incompatible with God. Etc, etc. I realize this is totally abstract and probably unintelligible to one unfamiliar with Thomisim, but there you go. The arguments of the Scholastic philosophers put a lot on the table regarding God’s attributes. Now, say these conclusions are established, what are we left with? At most, we have five options:

1. Christianity
2. Judaism
3. Islam
4. A really strange deism
5. A theism with a God nobody is familiar with and which we will never know about.

The last two are ruled out on pragmatic grounds (there’d be no reason to worship either). This leaves the Abrahamic Religions. The Resurrection argument and a plethora of claimed miracles seems to give Christianity a pretty decent edge among them. Perhaps they are all wrong, but I think it would take years of study to establish such a case. It seems if nothing else that one has pretty good epistemic justification in holding to Christianity as opposed to anything else. Again, though, this is all super abstract and lacking in detail. I’d recommend a couple books to actually get a functional grasp of most of this.

As far as private revelations go, some of them (Fatima was an example) are either accepted by the Church or are given special consideration. So I don’t think that claim stands either.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Jewel asks for " evidence ." I think it only fair that Jewel provide us with the evidence that the universe created itself. Because here is what Jewel is essentially saying. " Here are two rocks, one weighing 175 lbs and one weighing 115 lbs. After a 100 billion years or so the 175 lb rock will turn into a man with an intellect and the 115 lb rock will turn itself into a woman with an intellect and the human race will start off once again. Wonderful! Perfectly logical, perfectly scientific! I rest my case.

I agree with him on one thing however. Don’t think you will experience a conversion to belief on your death bead, let alone hope and charity. That I think is pretty rare, highly problematic…

Linus2nd

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

There were many crucifixions back then. It was a barbaric, but common method of execution. There were many people called Yeshua (Jesus) in those times. It was a very common name. There is one sentence in Josephus’ text, commonly held to be a later insertion by historians. There was no evidence of “walking on water”, “healing sick people”, “expelling demons”, etc… all part of the legend.

Saying the “insertion of Christ was a later addition” is “commonly held” is a rather sweeping generalization, that also lacks evidence. While there were many mentions of people named Jesus in Antiquities, there were only two specifically related to Jesus Christ. The more controversial is the Testimonium in book 18. There are supporters and doubters of that excerpt. However, the mention in Book 20 in relation to Jesus’ brother James is mostly regarded as being fully true, and not a later addition of any kind. That would be enough to say the man existed in his time. I believe that those that would disparage or try to refute that Christ was specifically mentioned in Antiquities are approaching it from a standpoint with which to cast more doubt on his existence in the first place, because there are those that would seemingly go to any lengths to deny Christ, and spread that denial and doubt in the world. For what purpose, I often wonder? Why is the idea of Christ so threatening that so many try so hard to deny Him? If you don’t believe, then don’t believe. In the end, you will know one way or the other, because there will be nothing, or there will be Hell, or whatever.

What “evidence” would you accept of “walking on water”, “healing sick people”, “expelling demons”, etc., other than eyewitness accounts, and how would those accounts be passed on in that age other than mostly by verbal means? Writing was not commonplace.

Hypothetically, perhaps time travel with a video recording device would be the only evidence you would accept? Even then, I’m guessing you could fake such video evidence, so then maybe you would simply never believe, even if you were there and saw it with your own eyes. There were others who WERE there who didn’t believe, so you would be amongst like-minded company.

In the end, its about believing or not. Evidence, even actually being there, cannot make one believe. You have Faith in what you see, read, hear, or you don’t. You will NEVER have evidence.

 

[oldcelt]

If you try to become a “prophet” making predictions about my deathbed, I suggest not to give up your day gig yet. I am already past my “death-bed”, having been dragged back from clinical death after a nice heart-attack, and let me tell you, “repenting” was the furthest thing from my mind. How many times will this nonsense: “on your death bed you will recant!!!” come up?

*** Sigh ***. I am not “mocking” God. I am pointing out the irrational propositions about God. Can you comprehend the difference?

There were many crucifixions back then. It was a barbaric, but common method of execution. There were many people called Yeshua (Jesus) in those times. It was a very common name. There is one sentence in Josephus’ text, commonly held to be a later insertion by historians. There was no evidence of “walking on water”, “healing sick people”, “expelling demons”, etc… all part of the legend.

To my best recollection I only asked for some epistemological method. But since the “spiritual” realm is alleged to interact with the physical reality both ways (!) it is very reasonable to demand physical evidence for the interaction.

There are several, mutually exclusive claims. Some assert unconditionally that “ask and your request will be fulfilled”, while others say that “if God deems it right”, then your request will be fulfilled. Of course it is always good “hedging the bets”. Even a less than 100%, but statistically significant result would interesting to consider.

Orally transmitted stories are called “hearsay” evidence.

You mean that God established the church and was unable / unwilling to protect it? There were allegedly “thousands” healed and no one noticed? People resurrected, and no one cared?

Does not matter. The New Testament was “cherry-picked” from a whole lot of documents, selected by the members of the church. And then it is asserted that it contains the “inerrant” word of God.

I don’t interpret, only the church does. Funny that during the last 2000 years the church never found the time to create a “Catholic Annotated Bible”, which would separate the literally accurate parts from the allegorically “accurate” ones.

Even my parents used to say that we shouldn’t read the bible because we might get some strange thoughts. They were right (They were taught that) in that some of us figured out that it didn’t even make sense when compared to itself. The combination of books is poor in particular. There were others out there, but the new church didn’t like some of the ideas put forth.
The four Gospels that we do have are so dissimilar that they had to create a chart showing where they agree.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Jewel asks for " evidence ." I think it only fair that Jewel provide us with the evidence that the universe created itself.

I don’t think that is what s/he is asserting.

Because here is what Jewel is essentially saying. " Here are two rocks, one weighing 175 lbs and one weighing 115 lbs. After a 100 billion years or so the 175 lb rock will turn into a man with an intellect and the 115 lb rock will turn itself into a woman with an intellect and the human race will start off once again.

Interestingly enough it does seem that if you had a high enough mass of simple materials (water being composed of hydrogen and oxygen, fox example) in a close enough area it will undergo changes into other substances. But stellar nucleosynthesis may be far outside the topic area of this thread.

I agree with him on one thing however. Don’t think you will experience a conversion to belief on your death bead, let alone hope and charity. That I think is pretty rare, highly problematic…

I’ve had the impression that often times people don’t get a forewarning that they are about to die. The most recent two people of which I know that experienced death while in a bed seemed to have died without knowing that death was approaching from behind (one person was sleeping off a head injury, the other seemed to have cardiac arrest in his sleep).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think that is what s/he is asserting.

He is implying it and, by the way, so do you . .

Interestingly enough it does seem that if you had a high enough mass of simple materials (water being composed of hydrogen and oxygen, fox example) in a close enough area it will undergo changes into other substances. But stellar nucleosynthesis may be far outside the topic area of this thread.

The kind of thing that requires a deep faith.

I’ve had the impression that often times people don’t get a forewarning that they are about to die. The most recent two people of which I know that experienced death while in a bed seemed to have died without knowing that death was approaching from behind (one person was sleeping off a head injury, the other seemed to have cardiac arrest in his sleep).

We know neither the day nor the hour. Remember the man in the Bible who had a terrific harvest and planned on building a new barn to put it in and then to live it up for awhile. God told him, " You fool, don’t you know that this very night, your soul will be demanded of you? "

 

[Area_Man]

I don’t think that is what s/he is asserting.

Interestingly enough it does seem that if you had a high enough mass of simple materials (water being composed of hydrogen and oxygen, fox example) in a close enough area it will undergo changes into other substances. But stellar nucleosynthesis may be far outside the topic area of this thread.
Linusthe2nd;11557891:

The kind of thing that requires a deep faith.

Knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis doesn’t require faith. But it does require evidence!

 

[Contarini]

I mean what I said. How do I say it plainer?

I think on further reflection that I get it. You’re saying that Pascal’s argument doesn’t establish that God exists, but it proves that we should believe in God whether He exists or not? And you’re saying that atheists are “threatened” by this argument? How? I find more that they are insulted by the idea that they should believe in God out of self-interest rather than a love of truth. And I think they are honoring God by that reaction.

What I find difficult to understand is the point you are trying to make. Why do you say William James’ version is sounder than Pascal’s?

Because he gets rid of the crass appeal to fear and self-interest found in Pascal’s version, and the horrible language about dulling one’s critical faculties by application of holy water, etc. (Pascal was making a valid point about the relationship between practice and belief, and I get that he liked to put things outrageously, but the way he put it is still scandalous)

James also fleshes out the philosophical underpinnings of the argument. The point isn’t that if you make the wrong choice you will go to hell, but that since absolute certainty isn’t possible (in deference to Aquinas and Vatican I, I will qualify this by saying “for most of us with regard to the existence of God, and for everyone with regard to the specific claims of the Christian faith which can be known only through revelation”) it is legitimate to choose among “live options” based on such considerations as the practical value of a particular option in living a good and joyful life.

William Abraham further develops the point in his Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion with his concept of “soft rationalism,” whereby reason plays a role but you can’t simply weigh the logical arguments on each side and come to a definitive, obviously correct conclusion. Rather, important decisions are always the result of a vast array of factors, including deductive and inductive logic, intuition, etc. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Edwin

 

[ThinkingSapien]

He is implying it and, by the way, so do you . .

Naw, but my thoughts and statements on origins are on record here in these forums (and not hard to find).

Remember the man in the Bible who had a terrific harvest and planned on building a new barn to put it in and then to live it up for awhile. God told him, " You fool, don’t you know that this very night, your soul will be demanded of you? "

Yeah, I remember it, said to have been told in response to some one requesting a demand be given for a relative to divide some inheritance.

I’ve been in a few situations in which I thought my death was assured. I didn’t experience a deathbed type conversion myself. Instead my thoughts turned towards the loved ones that I thought I would be leaving behind and the hopes that my death would not burden anyone too much.

 

[MPat]

Even my parents used to say that we shouldn’t read the bible because we might get some strange thoughts. They were right (They were taught that) in that some of us figured out that it didn’t even make sense when compared to itself. The combination of books is poor in particular. There were others out there, but the new church didn’t like some of the ideas put forth.
The four Gospels that we do have are so dissimilar that they had to create a chart showing where they agree.

And they agree pretty well. If you want to see sources that do not agree, look at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Servile_War&oldid=583970035 - Wikipedia’s article about Third Servile War (the one with Spartacus). You can see that it happened on 73–71 BC and the two main sources are Appian (c. AD 95 – c. AD 165) and Plutach (c. 46 – 120 AD). Their works have been written “decades after events”? Actually, more than one hundred years after events. And they are so dissimilar, that Wikipedia has two different maps for Plutach’s and Appian’s versions of events (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AppienSpartacus.gif and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3rd_servile_72_plutarch.gif)…

Compared with that Gospels look not just well, but almost miraculously well.

And yet, are you ready to claim that Spartacus didn’t live? Or that the war didn’t happen…? Or that we should ignore those sources…?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t interpret, only the church does. Funny that during the last 2000 years the church never found the time to create a “Catholic Annotated Bible”, which would separate the literally accurate parts from the allegorically “accurate” ones.

Funny that during the past 2000 years only the Catholic Church assembled the books of the New Testament for all future generations of Catholics and Protestants.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;11555165:

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”.

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.

Reporting evidence/data of shared experience is not an ad populam/numeram fallacy.

If it were, then you have committed the same fallacy in your thread/poll topic here;
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=847574

When multiple attestation occurs of the same event or experience, that is not anecdote. It is statistical data which corroborates the event.

I would have posted a couple of extra questions to you Jewel34 but I see you are recently banned.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would have posted a couple of extra questions to you Jewel34 but I see you are recently banned.

I noticed too. But all the same if you have info that you think could be to the advantage of those that come along later in the future and read this thread please do post it.

 

[oldcelt]

And they agree pretty well. If you want to see sources that do not agree, look at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Servile_War&oldid=583970035 - Wikipedia’s article about Third Servile War (the one with Spartacus). You can see that it happened on 73–71 BC and the two main sources are Appian (c. AD 95 – c. AD 165) and Plutach (c. 46 – 120 AD). Their works have been written “decades after events”? Actually, more than one hundred years after events. And they are so dissimilar, that Wikipedia has two different maps for Plutach’s and Appian’s versions of events (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AppienSpartacus.gif and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3rd_servile_72_plutarch.gif)…

Compared with that Gospels look not just well, but almost miraculously well.

And yet, are you ready to claim that Spartacus didn’t live? Or that the war didn’t happen…? Or that we should ignore those sources…?

If I was writing the book I would try to find other sources to settle the issue. I would at least say that the sources are not conclusive and portray very different versions of events. But then again, I don’t have an agenda in proving the incarnate God. I do military subjects.If you compare the Synoptic Gospels to John, you’d hardly know you were talking about the same guy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If I was writing the book I would try to find other sources to settle the issue. I would at least say that the sources are not conclusive and portray very different versions of events. But then again, I don’t have an agenda in proving the incarnate God. I do military subjects.If you compare the Synoptic Gospels to John, you’d hardly know you were talking about the same guy.

I disagree. The Synoptics were objective eyewitness accounts of what those disciples saw and heard. John’s Gospel is more an intimate portrait of the person of Jesus written by someone who knew him deeply, rather than the more third person POVs of the other Gospels that tell about Jesus’ words and deeds. They are not contradictory, they just have a very different intent.