Reasonable Doubt

[Ammonius_Saccus]

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

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.

I am saying the criminal should be given same standard of reasonableness as a Christian. If it reasonable to believe that a man died and rose from the dead three days later and that this man is God, why would it not be reasonable to believe that it is possible (only enough for a doubt, not that it actually happened) that an accused rapist’s semen magically got into a woman’s vagina?,

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 already said I do not know. This should not prevent you from presenting the evidence. When I took chemistry I did not know what it would take to show certain things. This did not prevent my teachers from presenting the evidence to establish theories and facts.

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

Sure if God exists then miracles are possible. But you have not established that God exists.

[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

What problem is that? And even if I have a problem with probabilites you still have not presented evidence to establish that God exists and that Jesus in God.

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.

The Kalām argument is just as restatement of the cosmological argument which has well known objections. But even if it was correct it would show a personal god, but a prime mover type god.

It seems that every time I ask a believer for evidence instead of presenting the evidence that God exists and that Jesus is God they deflect the request to say what will you take as evidence or say that it a matter of faith and that evidence is not needed. I don’t understand why Christians cannot just present the evidence that God exists and that Jesus is God.
[/quote]

 

[tdgesq]

I am saying the criminal should be given same standard of reasonableness as a Christian. If it reasonable to believe that a man died and rose from the dead three days later and that this man is God, why would it not be reasonable to believe that it is possible (only enough for a doubt, not that it actually happened) that an accused rapist’s semen magically got into a woman’s vagina?

Actually, what i was trying to show is that your analogy is totally inapposite. You set yourself up for failure by placing that kind of burden on yourself in the theological and philosophical arena. What constitutes proof in a court of law is something completely different from what we are considering here.

I already said I do not know. This should not prevent you from presenting the evidence. When I took chemistry I did not know what it would take to show certain things. This did not prevent my teachers from presenting the evidence to establish theories and facts.

You didn’t say you don’t know like you did when you were first introduced to chemistry. You started out with an inflammatory statement that believing in Christianity was like a jury believing some crazy story from a criminal defendant. Is that how you started out with your chemistry professor? You told him that stoichiometry was bunk until somebody could come along and prove it? You have not treated Christianity the same way you treated chemistry.

Sure if God exists then miracles are possible. But you have not established that God exists.

You never asked. If that’s what you want, start a new thread.

What problem is that? And even if I have a problem with probabilites you still have not presented evidence to establish that God exists and that Jesus in God.

You demand that I work in probabilities, but you can’t establish that probabilities give us knowledge. There is no way then that I can do what you ask. The existence of God is a different question from establishing miracles. It isn’t the question you asked, but one I would be happy to answer on another thread.

The Kalām argument is just as restatement of the cosmological argument which has well known objections. But even if it was correct it would show a personal god, but a prime mover type god.

Then demonstrate that you understand the well known objections. It appears to me that you hold them on faith without really understanding them. So you will admit to a prime mover then? Let me know if this is the case. Then we can decide if this implicates a personal God.

It seems that every time I ask a believer for evidence instead of presenting the evidence that God exists and that Jesus is God they deflect the request to say what will you take as evidence or say that it a matter of faith and that evidence is not needed. I don’t understand why Christians cannot just present the evidence that God exists and that Jesus is God.

It is a totally legitimate question to ask what you would accept as evidence for existence of God. That you can’t answer that question speaks volumes about the depth of your thinking in this area. No one can present you with the evidence that would convince you if you can’t even define what type and quantum of evidence is required.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Then demonstrate that you understand the well known objections. It appears to me that you hold them on faith without really understanding them. So you will admit to a prime mover then? Let me know if this is the case. Then we can decide if this implicates a personal God.

I don’t feel like go over this whole thing again like I do everytime I discuss evidence for Christianity with a Christian. I was involved with a thread that discussed the cosmological argument before.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127760&highlight=evidence+for+god

You didn’t say you don’t know like you did when you were first introduced to chemistry. You started out with an inflammatory statement that believing in Christianity was like a jury believing some crazy story from a criminal defendant. Is that how you started out with your chemistry professor? You told him that stoichiometry was bunk until somebody could come along and prove it? You have not treated Christianity the same way you treated chemistry.

It is a totally legitimate question to ask what you would accept as evidence for existence of God. That you can’t answer that question speaks volumes about the depth of your thinking in this area. No one can present you with the evidence that would convince you if you can’t even define what type and quantum of evidence is required.

Fine, I withdraw any statement that could be seen as saying that Christianity can be seen as a crazy story. Can you please just present all your evidence that God exists and that Jesus in God in the same manner that a chemistry expert could present evidence. (And not logical proofs that show it is possible that God exists, but actual evidence that God does exist and that Jesus is God.)

 

[tdgesq]

Can you please just present all your evidence that God exists and that Jesus in God in the same manner that a chemistry expert could present evidence. (And not logical proofs that show it is possible that God exists, but actual evidence that God does exist and that Jesus is God.)

I can only do this if you first let me know what kind of evidence you require. With chemistry it was easy for you. You already had in mind what you would accept. That is why you didn’t challenge your chemistry professor at the outset.

You will need to start a new post. It will need to contain what you will accept as evidence to convince you that God exists and that Jesus is God. It will not be an easy thing for you to do, but I promise that I will answer it. You may not like the answers, and I guarantee that it will not be exactly what you expected.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

You will need to start a new post. It will need to contain what you will accept as evidence to convince you that God exists and that Jesus is God. It will not be an easy thing for you to do, but I promise that I will answer it. You may not like the answers, and I guarantee that it will not be exactly what you expected.

How am I supposed to know what the evidence will before I know what it is? I didn’t know what evidence would establish theories and facts in chemistry before it was presented.

Do you have evidence that establishes that God does exist and that God is Jesus? If you do, all you have to is present it.

 

[Valke2]

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?

what is the historical evidence that they died for their beliefs? Is it something that Josephus wrote about or some other historian? (and how does this make them sane or honest? Koresh and Jim Jones and many others, including thousands of Jews have died for their beliefs).

 

[Nick]

what is the historical evidence that they died for their beliefs? Is it something that Josephus wrote about or some other historian? (and how does this make them sane or honest? Koresh and Jim Jones and many others, including thousands of Jews have died for their beliefs).

Are you seriously questioning that many of the fist Christians were martyred? Pick up almost any history book that covers early Christianity if you want historical evidence.

I did not say that their willing to die for their beliefs proved that they were sane ( that is proved by their writings and Traditions unlike the works of Koresh and Jones) but it does show that they honestly believed what they preached, as no doubt did Koresh and Jones and many others.

 

[jmcrae]

How do you know this?

Because I have read their writings (which I find in the three volumes of The Faith of the Early Fathers, compiled by William Jurgens; there are also several other good English translations) in addition to the New Testament. These writings are the evidence that the early tradition around who the writers of the New Testament were dates back to their actual lifetimes or very shortly afterwards.

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

The Gospel according to Matthew, the Gospel according to John, the First Letter of John, the Second Letter of John, the Third Letter of John, and the Book of Revelation. The Early Fathers also tell us that the other writers of the New Testament were in close contact with the Apostles. Mark is even referred to as St. Peter’s “son,” though whether that is meant in a spiritual sense or a biological sense is unclear.

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

Because I have no overridingly good reason to doubt it.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Because I have no overridingly good reason to doubt it.

So you are coming at this issue with a bias. Why not approach the issue in a neutral manner? Why not say I am not going to take a position that the the NT is true until proven otherwise and I am also not going to take the position that the NT is false until proven otherwise, but instead I will just nuetrally look at the evidence?

 

[jmcrae]

So you are coming at this issue with a bias. Why not approach the issue in a neutral manner? Why not say I am not going to take a position that the the NT is true until proven otherwise and I am also not going to take the position that the NT is false until proven otherwise, but instead I will just nuetrally look at the evidence?

There is not really such a thing as a neutral manner. “Neutral” is the same thing as doubt, I think. I have no reason to doubt it.

This is my approach to all things; not just the Bible. I believe everything I read and everything I hear, unless I have a good reason not to. (ie: blatantly contradicts my experience of God and of reality.)

It makes my life to be very simple and happy.

 

[clmowry]

As are you.

You are not taking a postion of neutrality.

You have predetermined that anything “miraculous” needs to be “proven” in order to believed. When by definition if it was a scientificly provable event it wouldn’t be miraculous in the first place.

If Christ was hanging on a cross today. Died. Was pronounced dead by a doctor. Placed in a tomb. And appeared alive 3 days later. With a crowd surrounding the tomb and a video camera recording the whole thing.

It STILL couldn’t be proven.

Doctors can be bribed. Video tapes can be altered. Plastic sergeons could have made a look alike. He could have an identical twin. etc. etc.

A serious question, Why do you come here at all?

I don’t get it. Do you just like to argue?

You’ve taken a position that can never be “logically changed”. A position that frankly precludes “belief” in any thing.

I doubt very seriously you are ever going to get anyone here to take up that position. (And even if you did, what would be the point?)

So why bother?

Chuck

So you are coming at this issue with a bias. Why not approach the issue in a neutral manner? Why not say I am not going to take a position that the the NT is true until proven otherwise and I am also not going to take the position that the NT is false until proven otherwise, but instead I will just nuetrally look at the evidence?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

As are you.

You are not taking a postion of neutrality.

You have predetermined that anything “miraculous” needs to be “proven” in order to believed. When by definition if it was a scientificly provable event it wouldn’t be miraculous in the first place.

If Christ was hanging on a cross today. Died. Was pronounced dead by a doctor. Placed in a tomb. And appeared alive 3 days later. With a crowd surrounding the tomb and a video camera recording the whole thing.

It STILL couldn’t be proven.

I never asked for it to be proven. I asked for evidence to establish that God is real and that Jesus in God. If there was evidence of the kind you talk about including video and all other stuff it would not prove that God is real and that Jesus is God, but it would be fairly powerful evidence.

However, this type of evidence does not exist. It is just a deflection for you claim that I would not believe even if there was more powerful evidence. There is not more powerful evidence. All we have is hearsay evidence by people who not eyewitnesses. There is no video.

If there is not extremely powerful evidence of the events of the resurrection, how to you know it happened? Why do you believe the stories about Jesus, but disbelieve the stories from other religions? Do you really think that second-hand accounts by members of a movement is enough to establish that an extraordinary event really did occur?

 

[clmowry]

Your demand is for evidence that cannot be given. No one is alive who was there. All accounts will be second hand.

And yes I really do think “second-hand accounts” are enogh to go on when combined with a multitude of “other reasons to believe”.

First off I disagree with your premise that their are no “first hand” accounts.

You’ve decided that the writings of the Apostles are not their own and I have no reason to accept that belief? The current crop of “scholars” are just plain wrong on the subject.

Brilliant men for centuries had plenty of reason to belive that these books came from “eye witnesses”. It’s one of the main reasons they were considered inspired in the first place. I’m inclined to trust that tradition of the church and the folks that were part of the 1st and 2nd generation of christians then a bunch of “scholars” 2000 years removed from the subject making guesses based on linquistic anomallies.

The whole Q theory and the re-ordering and “new” later dating of the books of the bible are scholarly explanations to “problems” of their own creation that are all to eagerly gobbled up by folks who like that answer much better.

So yeah. I take the Word of the Church as Truth. But not becasue anybody’s “proven” it to me. I’ve got other reasons to believe. God was kind enough to hit me in the back of the head with a 2x4. Perhaps you’ll be so blessed.

Once you believe that “I AM” and that “THIS IS MY CHURCH” boy does all the rest of the stuff just fall into place.

I don’t need anybody to “prove it” too me any more. I just need to take the time to figure out why I don’t understand it yet.

Chuck

I asked for evidence to establish that God is real and that Jesus in God.

Do you really think that second-hand accounts by members of a movement is enough to establish that an extraordinary event really did occur?

 

[jmcrae]

I never asked for it to be proven. I asked for evidence to establish that God is real and that Jesus in God. If there was evidence of the kind you talk about including video and all other stuff it would not prove that God is real and that Jesus is God, but it would be fairly powerful evidence.

Why aren’t their public speeches (which are recounted in the New Testament and elsewhere) and the fact that they went to their deaths without recanting their public proclamations sufficient evidence?

I find this even more convincing than video evidence, since that can be faked, but someone going to his death insisting that he saw Jesus rise from the dead - that’s pretty powerful.

5,000 people doing the same is even more powerful. (Or at least being willing to do the same - I don’t know how many of them were actually killed - a huge percentage of them, though.)

 

[Nick]

If there is not extremely powerful evidence of the events of the resurrection, how to you know it happened? Why do you believe the stories about Jesus, but disbelieve the stories from other religions? Do you really think that second-hand accounts by members of a movement is enough to establish that an extraordinary event really did occur?

How many times can you ask these questions and seemingly ignore the responses that are given to you?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

How many times can you ask these questions and seemingly ignore the responses that are given to you?

How about until it is directly answered? Or until someone can in a neutral manner present the evidence that God is real and that Jesus in God. Or can the case only be made from a position of bias?

 

[jmcrae]

How about until it is directly answered? Or until someone can in a neutral manner present the evidence that God is real and that Jesus in God. Or can the case only be made from a position of bias?

What is a “neutral position”? One either doubts the veracity of the New Testament, in which case it doesn’t qualify as evidence (in which case, pick a different starting place - do you want Jesus to appear to you personally? Ask Him to do so, then, and see what happens), or one accepts that the people who wrote it believed that what they were writing was true, and that they were not insane, and then you can begin there.

 

[utunumsint]

Even if there are no firsthand witnesses, (which I don’t believe) it has to be admitted that the traditions we have of the death and resurrection of Jesus are very old. If you look at some of the writings of Paul, i.e. 1 Thessalonians, and 1 Corinthians, they were probably written between 15 and 20 years after the death and resurrection. These are the some of the earliest Christian writings in the New Testament. If you look at some of the statements Paul makes, they sound like creedal statements, or hymns, or sayings, and they attest to Paul and the early church’s belief in the resurrection.

Base on his writings, we also know that he met with Peter and James. He spoke with firsthand witnesses. If Paul met with Peter, and James, how many other people met with them? And who are these 500 people that Paul talks about? Did he just make that number up? Is it not possible that Paul met with other disciples, or even with Mary, who is mentioned in Acts? And what about the other disciples? They were actively preaching the gospels. At least this is stated either directly or indirectly by Acts, and other letters. Could it not be that the teachings that they imparted to the early church were carefully gathered together and written down by competent scribes, like Luke, or Mark, or Matthew, or John?

You have to at least admit that it is possible that the Gospels are accurate accounts and believing in them is not the same thing as believing a mad man. Crazy people are usually frothing at the mouth, delusional, and demented. You can make the case that Jesus is like David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, but there are no miracles, or supernatural events associated with these people. No one saw the angel Moroni except for Smith. No one saw Gabriel, except for Mohammed. No one saw the books they wrote. At least twelve people believe that they saw the risen Christ. Paul speaks of another 500 people.

The accounts of these visions are fuzzy. But if you think back to a time when you are ecstatically happy, and having a great time, or in awe, how much do you remember? Can you describe in detail a glorious sunset and how it made you feel? Any account you make will pale in comparison to the reality. And that is the same way with the resurrection. They are trying to describe something that is next to indescribable because it left such a deep impression on them.

I don’t pretend that making the leap of faith is not a choice, and an act of will. You have to chose to believe, and you have to chose to trust that Christ is who he says he is, and the accounts we have of him are accurate. That is why we call it faith. But I don’t think that my choice is unreasonable.

As for reasonable doubt, here it is: I may be wrong. But I have faith that I am not, and my faith is confirmed every day by a living relationship with the risen Lord, in prayer, and in the communion of the mass which unites me to every other believing Christian as brothers and sisters in Christ.

God bless,
Ut.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

What is a “neutral position”? One either doubts the veracity of the New Testament, in which case it doesn’t qualify as evidence (in which case, pick a different starting place - do you want Jesus to appear to you personally?

A neutral position is saying I don’t know if the NT is true or false so I will just look at the evidence.

 

[jmcrae]

A neutral position is saying I don’t know if the NT is true or false so I will just look at the evidence.

What would you consider to be evidence?

Do you want to examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself? (The blood on it is the same blood type as the Miracle at Lanciano. The face depicted is similar to the most traditional artistic depictions of Christ.)

Do you want to go to the tomb of Christ and see whether it is empty? (It is.)

Do you want to go to the Catacombs and see what kind of art and graffitti the earliest Christians were making, to see for yourself that the earliest Christians believed in the Resurrection?

Do you want to read the writings of the Early Fathers? (The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens is an excellent starting place.)