The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[Bradski]

We’ve already discussed this, Brad.

It’s incorrect to say that the Bible recorded Jesus’ words verbatim.

No knowledgeable Catholic asserts such a thing.

Exactly. We can’t simply take passages from the bible and say it happened exactly as reported.

 

[Cheiron]

I can. I’m just reading Hyperion by Dan Simmons. I won’t go into details but one part of the story has a Catholic priest travelling to a distant planet and dicovering unequivicol evidence of Christianity which had been there for a lot longer than the ability tomtravel to such places had been in existence.

But then again, maybe God is only interested in this fly blown speck of cosmic dust in a non descript corner of the galaxy. Something I can’t quite get my head around.

But how about the afterlife? There is one, apparently. And being given evidence of it would be a cast iron certainty to get me up to the local church and banging on the door. So if my Grandad made an appearance and told me that he and my gran were living happily ever after (literally) then I’m signing up.

But of course, it could be pointed by any given Christian that I could claim that it was me being delusional. Which is something I could equally point out to him or her. So all things being equal…any time you’re ready Grandad.

And it would be my eternal soul he’d be saving. So I’m a little put out that he and the rest of the dear departed family have not made the effort as yet.

Good point. If one of my dead relatives spoke with me and told me that the Catholic religion is the right one, then yes, that would be very convincing.

Actually I did not mention any names.

You were right though: there are Christians who think it’s somehow arrogant to demand evidence from God to prove His existence. I think your comment referred to someone in the “Three friends and three questions” topic.

I just wanted to make clear that PRmerger didn’t write that, fortunately.

Well, yeah.

We don’t take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible.

Imagine if your child came home sneering about how valueless education is because “Some of the things they make me read are allegorical, but some of the things are 'historical when they want them to be’’. Sheesh! I demand that things either be ALWAYS allegorical or ALWAYS historical!”

You’d need to sit down and have a talk with your child and say, “Dearest, you are making an either/or demand where none needs to be. Atheists do this a lot. And so do fundamentalists. But the judicious approach is to accept allegory when it’s, em, allegory, and history when it’s…history. There isn’t always a need to make this weird demand. It’s ridiculous.”

The question then, is how we seperate history and allegory. To continue with Genesis: the Fall was the result of two humans, one male, one female, eating a forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. We can’t say that the garden was allegorical, while maintaining that the event that took place in the garden of Eden is historical.

Now, perhaps someone - a liberal theologian for example - will say that the Fall of Man happened somewhere on the plains of Africa, in the early days of homo sapiens’ existence. But then I would argue that that is simply not what the Bible says.

 

[Cheiron]

1. fossils depicting humans in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago would be evidence of fundamentalist Christianity, but not Catholic Christianity.

It would also be evidence that the Genesis story is true. I would be very surprised if the Catholic Church would disregard this evidence if it existed.

1. an eclipse as described in Luke happening later would actually be evidence AGAINST God’s existence, right?

The fact that the eclipse in Luke can’t possibly have happened makes the account less credible. If it turnes out that such an eclipse could have happened, - either by natural or supernatural means - then it makes the gospel more credible.

Otherwise, we could simply point to floods happening in 2015 as evidence of floods that happened in the OT.

Are you willing to accept the floods as proof of the Bible’s veracity?

No?

Then…

If there was a flood of the same proportions as the one Noah built his boat for, then that would make the Genesis account more credible. But we wouldn’t be here to discuss it, I’m afraid.

 

[Bradski]

If there was a flood of the same proportions as the one Noah built his boat for, then that would make the Genesis account more credible. But we wouldn’t be here to discuss it, I’m afraid.

Imagine if we did come across evidence for a world wide flood. All the Catholics would be: ‘Wha…? God actually DID kill everyone? I thought it was wassisname…allegorical.’

Maybe he’s doing it again, but vewy, vewy swolwly. Like Global warming. I’d better get my boat stocked up.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Sheesh! I demand that things either be ALWAYS allegorical or ALWAYS historical!"

No sane unbeliever would (or does) demand anything like this. What they DO demand is something completely different: Tell me if verse “X” is literal and provide evidence for it, and tell me if verse “Y” is allegorical and tell me what does it refer to.

But the judicious approach is to accept allegory when it’s, em, allegory, and history when it’s…history.

Certainly. But it is YOUR job to separate the wheat from the chaff. As Dirty Harry said: “Go ahead, make my day!”.

 

[PRmerger]

Who did what, where and when? Details, please.

The first man and woman squandered our inheritance.

As far as where and when and details, we don’t have them.

Of course, having little details about a particular event doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, yeah?

What details do you have of Caesar crossing the Rubicon?

Are you going to assert, “I don’t believe Caesar did this until you give me the what, where, when and details!”

Of course you wouldn’t.

 

[PRmerger]

No sane unbeliever would (or does) demand anything like this.

Excellent. So your objection is otiose.

It would be helpful for all your objections if you would divorce yourself from the Either/Or Fundamentalism.

That’s why you will never be able to refute Catholicism: we embrace the Both/And.

 

[PRmerger]

Who cares what other atheists might or might not say? You asked me what would convince me.

Fair enough.

I’m just asking you to be consistent.

It’s an incoherent position to demand evidence for a particular geological event being possible, while dismissing evidence for a particular geological event being possible.

I’m surprised by this response. Because I very clearly said that the story of the Fall of mankind is too embedded in the rest of the story.

I’m not sure what you’re saying vis a vis your comment regarding fossil evidence.

What evidence for the Fall of mankind would be limned in fossils?

It’s simply not convincing to say that everything of Genesis is allegorical, while still maintaining that this one event really did happen.

Really?

Do you not agree that Pilgrim’s Progress is allegorical, but that it references actual things that “really do happen”?

For example, do you think, given its allegorical content, we should conclude that clouds don’t really bring waters?

"Dark clouds bring waters, when the bright bring none.” --John Bunyan

Or, is the rather sensible approach: some things are allegorical, but I maintain that some things really did happen?

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly. We can’t simply take passages from the bible and say it happened exactly as reported.

Yep. You should go to a Fundamentalist Bible Alone forum to present that position.

We Catholics look at the events recorded in the Scripture through the lens of the Faith which gave us these Scriptures: the Catholic Church.

(That’s another weapon you can use when you go to a Fundamentalist Bible Alone forum, Bradski. You can stump them with:* Really? Well, isn’t it the Catholic Church which gave you this Bible? How else would you know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not theopneustos (God-breathed) but that the Epistle to the Hebrews is? *

You’re welcome. )

Also, you should have the same approach with events in history and understand that it didn’t happen “exactly as reported”.

Actually, you should probably use this approach with anything current you hear reported as well.

Does that not seem to be prudent?

 

[PRmerger]

Good point. If one of my dead relatives spoke with me and told me that the Catholic religion is the right one, then yes, that would be very convincing.

Ok!

Now we’re talking!

So: how would you know that this was real? What if it’s simply a dream? Or someone with really high tech gizmos projecting a specter on your wall?

And is your standard for belief in God the same as for your belief that a woman is interested in you–you have to be “very convinced” before you take a step forward?

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

The question then, is how we seperate history and allegory.

Really?

If I gave you 5 quotes, you wouldn’t be able to tell if it was “history” or “allegory”?

At any rate, if you don’t know, you seek succor in a teacher, or a parent.

To continue with Genesis: the Fall was the result of two humans, one male, one female, eating a forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. We can’t say that the garden was allegorical, while maintaining that the event that took place in the garden of Eden is historical.

I’m not sure why we couldn’t.

CS Lewis’ Aslan is allegorical, but do we conclude that lions really don’t exist?

Now, perhaps someone - a liberal theologian for example - will say that the Fall of Man happened somewhere on the plains of Africa, in the early days of homo sapiens’ existence. But then I would argue that that is simply not what the Bible says.

That’s why we Catholics don’t read the Bible with a fundamentalist lens.

As I’m wont to say: Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

It’s amusing and bemusing to me to see how atheists read the Bible in the same way as Bible Alone Fundamentalist Christians do.

It’s strange bedmates to be sure!

 

[Cheiron]

Fair enough.

I’m not sure what you’re saying vis a vis your comment regarding fossil evidence.

What evidence for the Fall of mankind would be limned in fossils?

I’m saying that such evidence is consistent with the story of Genesis and therefore makes the whole thing more believable. The garden of Eden really must be historical if the events that supposedly transpired there are historical. If you don’t understand that after reading these two sentences, then there is no way on earth I will ever be able to explain it to you.

Really?
I’m not sure why we couldn’t.

CS Lewis’ Aslan is allegorical, but do we conclude that lions really don’t exist?

That is a very bad comparison. I don’t deny the existence of lions and I haven’t denied the existence of men and women. I do think that the events described in Lewis’ book did not take place.

There is an obvious difference between events and animals.

That’s why we Catholics don’t read the Bible with a fundamentalist lens.

As I’m wont to say: Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

It’s amusing and bemusing to me to see how atheists read the Bible in the same way as Bible Alone Fundamentalist Christians do.

It’s strange bedmates to be sure!

You do realize you are in bed with the fundamentalists with regard to the Fall, which you believe to be historical?

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that the eclipse in Luke can’t possibly have happened makes the account less credible. If it turnes out that such an eclipse could have happened, - either by natural or supernatural means - then it makes the gospel more credible.

I hope you can understand my incredulity at this ^^.

Let me make a parallel.

Let’s say an atheist said, “I’ll believe in the Gospels if there were an example in today’s time of a man, dead 3 days, coming back to life. If that were to happen, it would make the Gospel more credible”.

That would sound absurd, no? It would actually show that what happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago was NOT extraordinary, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Imagine if we did come across evidence for a world wide flood.

Just so we’re clear, “world wide flood” may not be literally a “world wide flood”.

 

[Cheiron]

I hope you can understand my incredulity at this ^^.

Let me make a parallel.

Let’s say an atheist said, “I’ll believe in the Gospels if there were an example in today’s time of a man, dead 3 days, coming back to life. If that were to happen, it would make the Gospel more credible”.

That would sound absurd, no? It would actually show that what happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago was NOT extraordinary, right?

Well, if it happens only once every two-thousand years, then that is still quite extraordinary. It would make Jesus supposed resurrection more credible. But if I remember correctly, Jesus isn’t the only one who has risen from the dead. Jairus’ daughter was raised from the dead. Lazarus was raised from the dead. When Jesus died, many holy people rose from the dead (Matthew 27:50-51). And finally, Paul resurrected a man called Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12 after almost literally boring him to death.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m saying that such evidence is consistent with the story of Genesis

Well, maybe the 6000 year old Earther’s story. But not the Catholic story.

The garden of Eden really must be historical if the events that supposedly transpired there are historical. If you don’t understand that after reading these two sentences, then there is no way on earth I will ever be able to explain it to you.

Ok. Let’s try a different tactic.

If you understand the Catholic position on Genesis, what fossil evidence would “give you a clue” that God exists?

Remember, we do not profess that the earth is 6000 years old.

So please give a concrete example of what fossil evidence would provide a “clue” to you.

That is a very bad comparison. I don’t deny the existence of lions and I haven’t denied the existence of men and women. I do think that the events described in Lewis’ book did not take place.

Egg-zactly.

So please be consistent.

Don’t have one standard for theological things and another standard for literary things.

If you can understand that some things in an allegory can reference actual events, then…

You do realize you are in bed with the fundamentalists with regard to the Fall, which you believe to be historical?

I don’t have a problem with being in bed with fundamentalists. Sometimes they are very Catholic when they assert things–for example, they profess that the Bible is the Word of God, that God is One, that Jesus died for our sins…which puts us in the same bed.

I just find it funny to imagine atheists and fundamentalists in the same bed.

I think you do, too.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, if it happens only once every two-thousand years, then that is still quite extraordinary. It would make Jesus supposed resurrection more credible. But if I remember correctly, Jesus isn’t the only one who has risen from the dead. Jairus’ daughter was raised from the dead. Lazarus was raised from the dead. When Jesus died, many holy people rose from the dead (Matthew 27:50-51). And finally, Paul resurrected a man called Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12 after almost literally boring him to death.

Fair enough.

So, then, why don’t you believe?

This is exactly what you’re asking for.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you going to assert, “I don’t believe Caesar did this until you give me the what, where, when and details!”

Of course you wouldn’t.

Of course she would!

 

[Peter_Plato]

When you ask: “what happened, where and when?” the answer: “we don’t know, we don’t care, but what we DO know that it really happened!”.

Who cares what other atheists might or might not say? You asked me what would convince me.

Never mind that you merely stated what you would find compelling evidence… you answer will ALWAS be distorted into a “demand”.

You simply can’t win.

To be fair, PRmerger did not tell me that it was wrong of me to demand evidence. But I do agree with the first bit. The distinction between historical and allegorical with regard to Genesis does seem to be guided by opportunism and necessity.

 

[Cheiron]

Ok. Let’s try a different tactic.

If you understand the Catholic position on Genesis, what fossil evidence would “give you a clue” that God exists?

Remember, we do not profess that the earth is 6000 years old.

So please give a concrete example of what fossil evidence would provide a “clue” to you.

The Catholic position, as I understand it, is that the Fall of Man really did happen, while disregarding the details about who, where and when. It seems to me that the Catholic Church wants to maintain it’s consistent with science - which rejects Genesis -, while still maintaining the historicity of the Fall, described in Genesis. That makes it’s vague and incoherent and those two reinforce each other. In short: I think the Catholic position is logically inconsistent and that’s why I’m not able to make a prediction for the Catholic understanding of Genesis that can be tested and verified/falsified.

I have also omitted any arguments about the age of earth, because I wanted to focus on human origins. If human fossils appeared suddenly - that is, with no “missing links” like homo erectus - in earthlayers in the area where the Garden of Eden supposedly was, then that would give credibility to the Genesis story, whatever the age.

Egg-zactly.

So please be consistent.

Don’t have one standard for theological things and another standard for literary things.

If you can understand that some things in an allegory can reference actual events, then…

Right, so the book of Genesis tells a story of an event that really happened among the first humans who lived - according to science - at least a hundred thousand years ago, on the plains of Africa, thousands of kilometers from the place of where the Garden of Eden supposedly was.

Yes, I suppose that is possible. What is your evidence that it’s true? Because the idea that the writer of Genesis, whoever that may be, had acces to that information seems implausable to me.

I don’t have a problem with being in bed with fundamentalists. Sometimes they are very Catholic when they assert things–for example, they profess that the Bible is the Word of God, that God is One, that Jesus died for our sins…which puts us in the same bed.

I just find it funny to imagine atheists and fundamentalists in the same bed.

I think you do, too.

I like to think of it as having a common ground to base the discussion on.

Fair enough.

So, then, why don’t you believe?

This is exactly what you’re asking for.

1. Because the resurrection of the dead contradicts science.
2. The source is biased.
3. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, even if it comes from an unbiased source. If the story is written down by someone who was not an eyewitness, it becomes even more unreliable.