Okay, so if you require that the evidence for God be scientific, then you claim it must be subject to testable, repeatable and falsifiable experimentation. We do not require this for many, many applications for discovering truth in our lives. The court system is only one example. I’m sure you can think of others.
That’s an absurd analogy. We know our court system is fairly effective because its been demonstrated. .
Why would you want to? No one has asked you to disprove God, have they? Why do you care about something you imagine is fictional? And why do you want to prove it to the believer? Shouldn’t you care about proving it to a disinterested third party? Are there any disinterested third parties? Why are you here arguing with believers? Do you think that people will discount their personal experience because of the system of evidence you wish to impose upon them? Maybe you want to change society so that you don’t have to deal with religious people? Well, why don’t you engage them and change their lives on a personal, face to face level, you know make a real difference in a positive way by demonstrating the non-existence of God? That sort of experience is what caused most of them to become religious in the first place.
Why do you guys care about spreading your nonsense all over the world? I claim the same right.
No, it isn’t. First of all, “hearsay” is a term used in the legal profession to denote second hand information;
copies of manuscripts aren’t second hand information? Hearsay is simply information someone gathers from another person regarding an event, condition, or thing they have no direct personal knowledge of. For instance, Paul in his letters said he encountered Christ on the road to Damascus. We don’t have an original letter from Paul, all we have are copies (actually copies of copies of yet more copies). This is classic hearsay.
it does not, in and of itself denote any lack of credibility or render the statements inadmissible. Rules have been developed in order to ensure that a reasonable degree of credibility can be attached to statements.
Yeah, they’re called the rules of evidence, and you need an exception for hearsay to be admissible. But I’m also not implying its valid to use American jurisprudence to judge the veracity of historical reports.
If you cared to research any of the witness statements made by those in the early Church you may find that they are quite reasonable by today’s standards.
I’ve researched them & compared it against contrary evidence and I’ve determined they’re not even close to reasonable.
Second, you forget corroborating historical accounts, which have not been shown to be any less reliable than historical accounts commonly accepted outside the “biblical” realm.
Corroberating accounts (like Josephus) show nothing more than a guy named Jesus probably existed. The only alleged eye witnesses to anything supernatural were his apostles. The only reports we have from them are writings dating a century after the fact. By that time there were all sorts of interpolations from Hellenic mythology.
Third, you forget archaeological evidence, which strongly supports Christian events in the same way it supports evolutionary science or secular historical study.
That’s absurd. There’s not a shred of archeological evidence that supports any supernatural claim made by the bible. In fact most of the evidence we do have debunks many of the claims made by the bible.
Finally, you’ve established no legitimate judge who gets to decide what evidence is or is not admissible. You’ve simply deemed yourself judge. Well, plenty of other folks have too, and they’ve found the evidence compelling; and more importantly, they’ve felt a personal impact, which is at the heart and soul of what religion is about, anyway.
There is an objective standard of reasonableness.
I’m not quite sure why you think Christians desire emotional hysteria,
I’m not quite sure either, since I didn’t infer Christians desire anything. I said reports of alleged god encounters and mystical prayer experiences amount to emotional hysteria.
but most personal experience stories I’ve come across (and personally experienced) involve positively changed lives and the power of prayer or victory over addiction or depression in the same way that alcoholics have personal experiences in AA. And it should be no surprise if elements of truth are found in other religions (as Catholics admit to be so) if God exists and people are looking for Him.
Yes, counseling has the same impact. The point is if people apply themselves and get involved with a regimented program designed to help them (and they stick it out) chances are good they will be helped.
Still doesn’t prove an invisible friend gave them a helping hand. This is stuff we tell ourselves, which along with some interplay by our subconscience helps us cope with stressors. My point is it’s no more real than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy (even though it makes us feel good & may even help us out sometimes).
Some folks think they are insulting religion when they compare it to a crutch for the weak. But we Christians have never denied this fact; we celebrate it. Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” So at the end of the day, we can probably agree that religion is a crutch for the weak. The only difference between you and me is that I admit that I am weak.
I’m not much for the Nietzschean approach. We all have weak moments in life, and we all benefit from extrenious help.
My only point is religion is untrue by any “reasonable” standard.
