Reasonable Doubt

[Ammonius_Saccus]

No. Is there any evidence that anything at all has ever happened in history, other than the evidence that a lot of people saw it happen and reported it?

Yes.

I believe it because they had no reason to make up the story, and nothing to gain by spreading it around, if it wasn’t really true.

Is that true for every religion? Why is Christianty different?

 

[Nick]

If that is all it takes to religious claims true then almost all religions would be true even though they have mutually exclusive beliefs.

Can you presetn actual historical evidence that Jesus was God and did rise from the dead not just that some people believed those things?

Again, please show an example of another religion where perfectly sane, rational, honest people made such outrageous claims as the first Christians and completely believed them and lived them out and were willing to undergo martyrdom rather than deny them.

What more historical evidence do you want than tesitmony from reliable eye witnesses? Why are you willing to accept eye witness tesitmony for other historical events, but not for Christianity?

 

[jmcrae]

Very few scholars believe that these works come from John the Apostle. Also, if the author of the Gospel of John and Revelation was the same man, why is the Greek so different between the two works?

Perhaps because there were two or more different translators translating it into the Greek. (John’s native language was Aramaic. It’s unlikely that he actually wrote the Greek versions of his works with his own hand.)

If the author of Matthew was an eyewitness why would be need to use other sources?

It’s actually much more plausible that the more traditional view (that is, the view taken by St. Jerome) is correct - that Matthew was written first, and that Mark and Luke took Matthew as one of their sources. We are also told by the ancients about their other sources - that St. Luke also listened to St. Paul and Mother Mary, and that St. Mark listened to St. Peter.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Again, please show an example of another religion where perfectly sane, rational, honest people made such outrageous claims as the first Christians and completely believed them and lived them out and were willing to undergo martyrdom rather than deny them.

Mormons.

What more historical evidence do you want than tesitmony from reliable eye witnesses?

How are do you know their claims on religious matters are reliable? How can you test these beliefs?

Why are you willing to accept eye witness tesitmony for other historical events, but not for Christianity?

I am willing to acept eyewitness testimony for some matters in regard to Christianity. But such as extraordinary claim as God came to Earth, died, rose from the dead requires more than just testimony from non-eyewtinesses. I do not accept the claims of eyewitnesses (or second accounts of eyewitnesses) of other religions either.

 

[jmcrae]

Joseph Smith gave first hand testimony. The Qur’an was is one level away from eyewitness testimony.

Neither Joseph Smith nor Mohammed were crowds of 5,000 people, or even ten people hiding out in a room together. (If all we had to go on was Mary Magdalene’s testimony, then you’d have a point, but Christ appeared to many people after the Resurrection - not only to her. And many people saw the empty tomb - not only her.)

The Scriptures tell us to call two or more witnesses, but in the cases of Joseph Smith and Mohammed, we only see one witness each. It’s also interesting that in both cases, the magical book that appeared to them was whisked back up into Heaven as soon as they finished copying it, without any opportunity for others to examine them.

Furthermore, neither the Qu’ran nor the Book of Mormon are good literature - both of them have the “feel” of having been written by crazy people, other than the rather large sections that are lifted directly from the Christian scriptures. (Joseph Smith quoted copiously from the King James Bible in the Book of Mormon - I don’t know what version Mohammed was using.)

Both Joseph Smith and Mohammed ran away rather than defend their teachings in a court of law. Neither of them was willing to die for their new religion.

 

[jmcrae]

Mormons.

Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon appeared to Joseph Smith on golden tablets, which mysteriously disappeared immediately after he copied them out. (Because they believe that, they also believe the Book of Mormon.)

Joseph Smith convinced a group of people that this had actually happened. From there, the Mormon religion has been spread by hearsay, quite openly. The original group does not even claim to have seen the golden tablets for themselves. They were very open about the fact that they were taking Joseph Smith at his word.

When threatened, they did not stay to be martyred for their beliefs - they took off for Utah, which they believed to be the new Promised Land because of the fact that it has a salt-water lake.

 

[clmowry]

And the scholarly community “knows” this how?

Where would the eye witnesses that can show that someone else wrote the Gospels come from?

Chuck

That is not true. It is generally held in the scholarly community that none of the gospels were written by eyewittnesses.

See: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman

 

[Nick]

How are do you know their claims on religious matters are reliable? How can you test these beliefs?

I am willing to acept eyewitness testimony for some matters in regard to Christianity. But such as extraordinary claim as God came to Earth, died, rose from the dead requires more than just testimony from non-eyewtinesses. I do not accept the claims of eyewitnesses (or second accounts of eyewitnesses) of other religions either.

Again, these people were sane, honest folks who lived out and were willing to die for what they believed. That is all that is required, from an historical perspective or otherwise, to accept their claims as trustworthy. The only way you could disprove their trustworthines is to conclusively show that they were neither sane, honest, or authentic believers who were willing to die rather than recant.

So you are unwilling to accept eyewitness testimony only when it comes to matters of religion, but consider it acceptable for other historical events?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Again, these people were sane, honest folks who lived out and were willing to die for what they believed. That is all that is required, from an historical perspective or otherwise, to accept their claims as trustworthy. The only way you could disprove their trustworthines is to conclusively show that they were neither sane, honest, or authentic believers who were willing to die rather than recant.

And what about all the people that from other religions that lived out lived out and were willing to die for what they believed? Were they all insane or dishonest? Just because someone honestly believes something and is willing to die for it does not mean that either they are insane or the belief is true.

So you are unwilling to accept eyewitness testimony only when it comes to matters of religion, but consider it acceptable for other historical events?

I never said any such thing.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Were all the Bwiti who were persecuted insane or dishonest? Was Hypatia of Alexandria dishonest or insane?

How could we know if a religious claim was true it nobody sought to persecute the believers?

 

[tdgesq]

So Ammonius, we have yet to see your proof beyond a reasonable doubt that miracles don’t occur.

Here’s a question, what kind of historical evidence would be necessary to convince you that a miracle has in fact occurred? Just curious.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

So Ammonius, we have yet to see your proof beyond a reasonable doubt that miracles don’t occur.

I never said I had such a proof.

Here’s a question, what kind of historical evidence would be necessary to convince you that a miracle has in fact occurred? Just curious.

I don’t know. It would have to be more than just the uncorroborated claims of members of a movement.

How do you think that miracles can be established to be the most probable thing that actually happened? Even though miracles cannot be proven to be impossible, they are improbable in that they violate they way nature naturally works. How do you think that something that violates the way nature naturally works can be established to be the most probable explanation?

 

[jmcrae]

And what about all the people that from other religions that lived out lived out and were willing to die for what they believed? Were they all insane or dishonest? Just because someone honestly believes something and is willing to die for it does not mean that either they are insane or the belief is true.

When they say that they were personal eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection (we’re speaking here about the Apostles themselves, not about their later followers) and they are willing to die rather than recant that particular statement, it’s evidence that they sincerely believe that they literally witnessed the Resurrection.

We know from their writings that they weren’t crazy. We know from their dedication that they weren’t lying. The only other alternative is that they were speaking the truth.

People of other religions die for what they believe in, yes, but none of them claim to be eyewitnesses to anything. Christians today die for the Christian faith without ever having been eyewitnesses. In neither case are their deaths evidence of anything except supreme dedication.

People of other religions have their own reasons for believing what they believe. Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on the testimony of the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

How do you think that something that violates the way nature naturally works can be established to be the most probable explanation?

When the only other alternatives are even more improbable.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

When they say that they were personal eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection (we’re speaking here about the Apostles themselves, not about their later followers) and they are willing to die rather than recant that particular statement, it’s evidence that they sincerely believe that they literally witnessed the Resurrection.

We know from their writings that they weren’t crazy.

 

[jmcrae]

The writing in the New Testament were not written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life.

The people who sat at their feet learning from them for the ~60 years from Pentecost to the death of St. John thought that they did. I don’t know where you are getting it from that they didn’t.

They could have made a mistake. Or they could have wanted to believe something that made sense of the experiences so badly they convinced themselves that Jesus had risen from the dead. And we don’t know what the eyewitnesses to Jesus believed. We only know what others said they believed.

Have you ever actually sat down and read the New Testament? This makes no sense whatsoever. It would have been so much easier for them to run away (which is what they had intended to do) and rebuild their lives with new careers. St. Peter was all set to go back and take up his fishing career again when the risen Christ appeared to him, made him breakfast on the beach, and made him change his mind.

Personal experiences are a big part of the Bwiti religion.

I don’t even know what that is. (How do you know for certain that they are claiming to experience something that they are not actually experiencing? It is not unheard of for God to reveal Himself to non-Christians, after all.)

 

[tdgesq]

I never said I had such a proof.

Then who is the prosecution in this case? Perhaps you should check out this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2159793&postcount=40

I don’t know. It would have to be more than just the uncorroborated claims of members of a movement.

You don’t know. Well, then I don’t know how to convince you. Once you’ve decided what it will take, let us all know.

How do you think that miracles can be established to be the most probable thing that actually happened?

If you presuppose that God doesn’t exist, then it will never be the most probable thing that can happen. In fact, it will always be impossible. I’m curious as to how you believe there is such a thing as probabilities at all. I’m sure you already realize that probabilities assume things that must be accepted on faith. You did realize that - didn’t you?

Even though miracles cannot be proven to be impossible, they are improbable in that they violate they way nature naturally works. How do you think that something that violates the way nature naturally works can be established to be the most probable explanation?

Again, probabilities only work in a faith based world view. Second, I do not believe that miracles violate the laws of nature. God created the laws of nature and he can work through them just fine. In other words, if you require that a miracle show that a law of nature was violated, then you misunderstand what a miracle is.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Then who is the prosecution in this case? Perhaps you should check out this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2159793&postcount=40

Nothing in post has to anything like me claiming to have the proof you claimed I claimed to have. Please do not attempt to twist my words.

You don’t know. Well, then I don’t know how to convince you. Once you’ve decided what it will take, let us all know.

You can convince me by presenting some actual evidence and not just claims by members of a movement.

If you presuppose that God doesn’t exist, then it will never be the most probable thing that can happen.

I do not presuppose that God does not exist.

I’m curious as to how you believe there is such a thing as probabilities at all.

By testing beliefs to see if they fit with what we observe. This method may not be perfect but it is the best we have

God created the laws of nature and he can work through them just fine.

Can you back this up with anything?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

The people who sat at their feet learning from them for the ~60 years from Pentecost to the death of St. John thought that they did. I don’t know where you are getting it from that they didn’t.

How do you know this?

Which of the books of the NT do you think were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life?

Have you ever actually sat down and read the New Testament?

Yes.

This makes no sense whatsoever. It would have been so much easier for them to run away (which is what they had intended to do) and rebuild their lives with new careers. St. Peter was all set to go back and take up his fishing career again when the risen Christ appeared to him, made him breakfast on the beach, and made him change his mind.

Why do you assume everything in the NT happened just they way it is written?

I don’t even know what that is. (How do you know for certain that they are claiming to experience something that they are not actually experiencing? It is not unheard of for God to reveal Himself to non-Christians, after all.)

How do you know it is the Christians that are misunderstanding their experiences?

 

[tdgesq]

Nothing in post has to anything like me claiming to have the proof you claimed I claimed to have. Please do not attempt to twist my words.

Then what do your words mean? Here they are again for you in case you forgot:

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that God became a man, was crucified, died, and rose from the dead after three days, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?

I didn’t twist your words. The Christian should get the same standard of proof that the criminal does, proof beyond a reasonable doubt (look at the title of your post). Since no one here but you is claiming that believing in Christ is the same as believing in a crazy story, then you’ve assumed the burden of proof that you’ve set up for yourself. If I’m wrong, then explain what you meant.

You can convince me by presenting some actual evidence and not just claims by members of a movement.

Not good enough. Tell me what it will take and then I will demonstrate it to you. Or maybe you don’t really know what it will take.

I do not presuppose that God does not exist.

Sure does seem like it. If God exists, then miracles are possible. You agree with that. Great.

By testing beliefs to see if they fit with what we observe. This method may not be perfect but it is the best we have

This statement doesn’t make sense for so many reasons. First, if the method of verification is imperfect, then you really can’t have confidence that miracles don’t occur. Second, by this standard, unless you’ve witnessed a miracle, you must reject that one is possible - which isn’t what you’ve said above. Finally, you haven’t directly addressed the problem you have with probabilities.

Can you back this up with anything?

For the existence of God? Sure, the Kalam Cosmological Argument among many others. If you mean how can I back up that God could work through the laws of nature when he performs miracles, then just look at what modern science can do through nature.