What evidence?

[Vera_Ljuba]

We can investigate physical claims through empirical methods. Agreed.

Here you stepped into some big doo-doo. (Check the sole of your shoe. ) The alleged miracles all happened in this realm. They are physical events in the physical realm. So they are subject to the empirical verification process.

If someone would assert that the latest football match between the Angels and Demons ended with 2:1 for the Angels, AND the game was played on a neutral stadium in the Purgatory, no sane person would demand physical evidence for it. But, if you claimed that the game was played in the Allianz Arena in Munich, then it would be reasonable to demand empirical evidence for this claim.

No. I’m challenging the (seemingly implicit and unexamined?) assertion that empirical methods are the only means by which we may reach truth.

No rational person would assert that. The truth claims in the abstract sciences are not subject to empirical verification. There is no way to verify - empirically - the Goldbach conjecture.

However – and correct me if I’m wrong – what I hear from atheists is “since i cannot use empirical tools to evaluate transcendental claims, these claims are therefore baseless.”

The problem is still the same. If those transcendental claims refer to the “supernatural realities” - for example in Hell there is an everlasting fire to torture the sinners and it is 300 degrees Celsius, then empirical verification is impossible. Of course there is no evidence for the positive claim either. So at best we are at a stalemate. (Freely asserted, freely denied.)

Yes, I do. Believers’ claims are “just as equal” as empiricists’ – although we’re making claims in different realms – and we disrespect each other when we ridicule our respective conclusions while disregarding the premises from which they proceed.

If your claim relates to this, physical existence, then you fall under the requirements of empirical verification. An example would be the efficacy of intercessory prayers. Or the alleged miracles at Lourdes. All the attempts to verify these claims come back with a negative result.

We’re not arguing that point. We agree. What you haven’t addressed is the (seemingly implicit and unproven) assertion that you seem to be making that God is obligated to do so.

Are we “obligated” to raise our children as best as we can? Or even give them minimal care? I don’t think so. But we do (most of us) because we love them, and we care about them. If God does not care about us, that is fine. But why would anyone want to worship a God, which does not care?

Ahh… one of the most mis-quoted and mischaracterized phrases in the debate.

Agreed. (Are you surprised? I hope not.) The principle is incorrect. Every claim is subject to the same process. To substantiate it to the level of acceptance for the (reasonable) skeptics. No one cares (or should care) of the mentally impaired. However, there is a difference. For mundane, everyday claims we simply forego the requirement for rigorous substantiation, because it is not worth it - it is a waste of time. It is easier just to accept irrelevant claims. But when the claim is of high importance - and the existence of God is (arguably) the most important claim of all - then we are within our “rights” to demand the most rigorous substantiation process. And that is where the apologists fail.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Deist: what information would convince you God exists?
Atheist: if he came down and talked to me
Deist: some people claim this has happened to them. Christians say God did. Do you believe their claims?
Atheist: no, because they’re brainwashed or they’re lying
Deist: so would you expect anyone to believe you if it happened to you?
Atheist: no, so God should come down to everybody
Deist: what if God doesn’t think that would be a good idea?

Up until this point you are “almost” fine. No one assumes that the apologists are brainwashed or liars. They are simply mistaken.

If God does not want to “save” everyone, then why should anyone worship him?

Atheist: if he wants to save people, then he should do it.
Deist: the creator of the universe probably knows better than we do. If they’re an infinite, all knowing being like a lot of people claim, then the fact that they haven’t done so should tell us that they don’t think it’s a good idea.

And here you left the field of rational discourse and stepped into the quagmire of “blind faith”.

 

[MPat]

The question comes up periodically when there is a conversation between a Christian and an atheist.

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “That is ridiculous. God is not a physical being.”
Atheist: “I heard that God can manifest himself in a human form. Is it not true?”
Christian: “Yes, it is true”. “But how dare you demand that God should be at your beck and call?”.
Atheist: “I did not demand anything. You asked a question, and I replied”.

Are you interested in playing the role of that Christian?

How about this (deviating from the third line):

Christian: Please look at those bones that palaeontologists have gathered. That is evidence and it is physical.
Atheist: What?!
Christian: You didn’t say that evidence has to be relevant.
Atheist ragequits.

Or about this:

Christian: How about [some miracle with physical evidence - for example, miracle of St. Januarius’s blood]. It is evidence and it is physical.
Atheist: That is not sufficient.
Christian: Why?
Atheist: It does not persuade me.
Christian: So, you are saying that in order to be persuaded about God’s existence, you have to be… persuaded about God’s existence?
Atheist: Yes.
Christian: That is less useful that one might have thought…

Or about this:

Christian: Only physical evidence? Why wouldn’t you accept some evidence based on witness testimony?
Atheist: People lie and are mistaken. Would you believe me if I said that I have an invisible dragon?
Christian: I guess I wouldn’t. After all, I also do not believe you when you say that you would change your mind after seeing physical evidence. You know, people lie and are mistaken, and you are one of the people. Or do you have some physical evidence to support your claim?
Atheist ragequits.

Now what?

And, by the way, it hasn’t been defined what exactly counts as “physical evidence”.

You seem to be arguing that any idea is equivalent as natural claims. That someone’s belief in the paranormal, ghosts, mind reading, and all mythical creatures of literature are just as equal in claim as the moon landing or a round earth. Or do you think this is an unfair conclusion to what you are presenting?

That’s a bit unclear… So, to illustrate that, what relevant difference do you see between claims “I have seen a giant squid.” (mythical creature, after all) and “I have landed on the Moon.”?

Your god should know what it would take to turn every atheist into a deist and has, from the religious claims, the ability to do so. The demascus road experience, becoming a shaman with actual healing powers, using holy relics to wipe out opposing armies and nations, bringing people back from the dead, curing leprosy and blindness, etc. It seems to know that people may need that level of evidence to convince them that this god is actually there and didn’t have a problem presenting it to them. Why not now for the rest of us that would need that level of evidence?

Isn’t it interesting that you do not indicate any interest in finding the truth here? You talk as if it was all God’s job to persuade you, as if you didn’t care to do any investigation yourself.

In that case, if even a possibility to end up in Heaven does not motivate you to investigate, what makes you think that anyone else (for example, God) should be motivated to do all the job for you instead?

Oh, and making a “deist” of you is not the goal anyway. There’s still some distance from Deism to Theism, not to mention Catholicism. And even Catholicism does not send you to Heaven automatically.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

The ‘What evidence’ question made me struggle with doubt for years.

Where does knowledge come from if not sensory experience? What other form of ‘(name removed by moderator)ut’ can there be?

Religious thinkers over the centuries have had to agree: ‘nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses.’ Most people cannot claim to have knowledge put directly into their minds by God—we’re limited to what we can experience. This really seems to put theists in a pickle: if science encompasses all sensory-verifiable knowledge, and all knowledge must come through sensory means, how can there be any other knowledge than scientific knowledge? How can we know about the things religions claim are real, like God, the human soul, or objective moral reality, when nothing sensory corresponds to these things?

All or almost all religions make claims about reality that cannot be verified by sensory experience. The crux of our problem is this: how can anyone ever claim to have transempirical knowledge?

The only scenario in which such claims are possible is one in which a transempirical reality is represented by an empirical reality.

For example: consider yourself. All the various biological parts of you will one day be comprehensively understood by science, including presumably your brain. Most theists believe that these parts are not ‘you’ as a person. A positivist however is forced to disagree. Once you are totally biologically understood, you yourself are totally understood. At this point, a positivist may be forced to say that, like the atheist’s idea of God, “who you are” as a person, free will, and consciousness exist only in the imagination. (Biologically, the various parts of your brain which create the sensations of free will and personality are physically forced to do so in the same way that a thrown ball is physically forced to land exactly where it does. Because there is no action your brain can take which is not physically forced, there is no room for any other kind of cause. Believing that ‘you’ have any real causal influence on your brain would mean admitting that at some point a nerve cell could fire without a physical cause. Thus, ‘people’ aren’t real; they exist only in the imagination. Only bodies are real, because only bodies are empirically knowable.)

A Christian however is allowed to say simply that we know not only all the parts that comprise the object “man” but also, through them, man in himself, or man as a person. The biological ‘you’ is a representation of the real you, which allows us to empirically if imperfectly know something about you. Only non-positivists are allowed to say fully, ‘I EXIST!’

This idea—that transempirical truths can be known through empirical reality—is the foundation of all religious thought, and the reason why religion can still rationally exist even after the question of how the universe and everything in it works is finally comprehensively answered by science.

The bottom line of this is best summarized in a quote from a book by JPII, whose ideas I have been trying to paraphrase here: Crossing the Threshold of Hope

… In addition, it is not possible to affirm that when something is transempirical it ceases to be empirical.

It is therefore possible to speak from a solid foundation about human experience, moral experience, or religious experience. And if it is possible to speak of such experiences, it is difficult to deny that, in the realm of human experience, one also finds good and evil, truth and beauty, and God. God Himself certainly is not an object of human empiricism; the Sacred Scripture, in its own way, emphasizes this: “No one has ever seen God” (cf. Jn 1:18). If God is a knowable object—as both the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans teach—He is such on the basis of man’s experience both of the visible world and of his interior world. This is the point of departure for Immanuel Kant’s study of ethical experience in which he abandons the old approach found in the writings of the Bible and of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Man recognizes himself as an ethical being, capable of acting according to criteria of good and evil, and not only those of profit and pleasure. He also recognizes himself as a religious being, capable of putting himself in contact with God. Prayer—of which we talked earlier—is in a certain sense the first verification of such a reality.

With this in mind, I’ve found that the things Christianity has to say about life, good and bad, what’s important and what isn’t, desire and indifference, and the things that fulfill us and the things that don’t embraces my own experiences.

No, there’s little in the way of physical evidence I can hand you, but I can honestly draw from my own experience, which is how anyone knows anything anyway.

Some fellow Catholics here might be wondering why it took me years to figure this out, and thinking that I’m over-complicating justifying religious experience unnecessarily. To me however this one little corner of a random book by JPII was groundbreaking. That line “…it is not possible to affirm that when something is transempirical it ceases to be empirical…” blew me away.

 

[meltzerboy]

Sure, but I usually only get this far…

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “OK great, Jesus physically rose from the dead.”
Atheist: “No He didn’t”
Christian: “Oh, so you actually DONT believe physical evidence”

You see, the irony here is that when the uber-skeptic sees physical evidence with their own eyes and they have that Road-to-Damascus conversion experience, the first thing they want to do is go running to tell their atheist friends - and have a guess what response they receive.

For the sake of argument, what does rising from the dead prove about Jesus? That He is the Messiah or that He is G-d? Maybe both, or maybe neither? In Deuteronomy, Moses teaches the Jewish people to beware of miracles as proof of anything. How do we know that Jesus Himself caused this to happen and not G-d apart from Jesus, or neither? Surely G-d can perform this miracle if He can perform other miracles, as both Moses and Jesus demonstrated. Is there anything G-d cannot do provided it is consistent with His nature? In short, what is the rising of Jesus from the dead physical evidence of?

 

[Bradski]

Objection. Where is the proof that the written report of the event was written ‘decades’ later? Where is the proof that the author is ‘not the person who claims to have written it’, and do the contradictions differ any more than eyewitness reports of any other large scale event?

"Dubious worth and questionable veracity’. . .

Really now. So you’re willing to accept written reports of exactly whom from exactly when?

You’re willing to accept written reports from Babylon as being by Hammurabi, right?

How about Draco and his code?

How about reports of Horatius at the bridge? The brothers Gracae?
The battle of Thermopylae?

How about the murder of Julius Caesar --how accurate are those reports?

The murder of Cicero?

Was there a real Confucius?

Lao Tze?

Marco Polo?

Can we accept Alexander Selkirk’s testimony of his life as a castaway?

Etc. etc.

Are they accurate and backed by evidence that a specific incident happened EXACTLY as written? Obviously not. We treat records of these events as someone’s interpretation of what happened. If the facts are backed up by other contemporary written testimony, then we can take that into consideration.

Someone used the same argument some time back and suggested that we can’t even be sure that Plato actually lived, yet we accept his writings as if he were.

I’m not sure if he realised that he was shooting himself in the foot. I’ll bet that he still walks with a limp.

 

[tonyrey]

For the sake of argument, what does rising from the dead prove about Jesus? That He is the Messiah or that He is G-d? Maybe both, or maybe neither? In Deuteronomy, Moses teaches the Jewish people to beware of miracles as proof of anything. How do we know that Jesus Himself caused this to happen and not G-d apart from Jesus, or neither? Surely G-d can perform this miracle if He can perform other miracles, as both Moses and Jesus demonstrated. Is there anything G-d cannot do provided it is consistent with His nature? In short, what is the rising of Jesus from the dead physical evidence of?

Moses himself believed he received a message from God - which is a miracle according to worldly and scientific criteria. How do we know God caused this to happen? Surely the intrinsic truth of the message which is supported by subsequent events such as the history of the Jewish people, the coming of the Messiah, the abundance of miracles and the values of modern civilisation expressed in the UNDHR is sufficient evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

I will have to change the answers of your hypothetical atheist.
Christian: Would an argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason do?

Atheist: No, because the PSR is NOT true. The chain of explanations cannot extend to infinity. There needs to be a “final” point which is self-evidently true; which is a brute fact. The only such starting point is that the Universe exists.

Your turn.

The starting point is not “The Universe exists” but “We infer that the Universe exists from what we perceive”. Our mental activity is our primary datum and sole certainty.

 

[Gorgias]

Here you stepped into some big doo-doo. (Check the sole of your shoe. ) The alleged miracles all happened in this realm. They are physical events in the physical realm. So they are subject to the empirical verification process.

Nah, didn’t step in it, I don’t think.

The physical event itself is subject to verification; the assertion that there is no known cause is one that can be accepted as a conclusion to the search for evidence; but, it’s the claim of a miracle that cannot be empirically verified.

No rational person would assert that. The truth claims in the abstract sciences are not subject to empirical verification.

But, what we usually hear is “your claims cannot be proven, and therefore, they’re bunk.”

The problem is still the same. If those transcendental claims refer to the “supernatural realities” - for example in Hell there is an everlasting fire to torture the sinners and it is 300 degrees Celsius, then empirical verification is impossible. Of course there is no evidence for the positive claim either. So at best we are at a stalemate. (Freely asserted, freely denied.)

And, those kind of physical claims aren’t what tend to get debated in these contexts. It’s rarely “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, but rather, “you cannot claim that angels exist.”

(And, although ‘freely asserted’ sometimes holds, the more common situation (IMHO) is that we each make our claims – and each of us thinking that they’re substantiated and reasonable – and then we freely deny the others’ claims, thinking their not to be thus. )

Are we “obligated” to raise our children as best as we can? Or even give them minimal care? I don’t think so. But we do (most of us) because we love them, and we care about them. If God does not care about us, that is fine. But why would anyone want to worship a God, which does not care?

However, our kids think we don’t care about them when we make them go to bed early, or punish them for misbehavior, or do any number of things whose goals they do not see. If you want to make the ‘children’ analogy, then ok, there’s a wider gap between God and us than between our kids and us. Why, then, do we insist we know better than Him and know that our plan is better than his? It smacks of a certain childish immaturity to conclude “He just doesn’t love us or care for us”; that’s what our children say when they’re acting churlish. Perhaps it was out of brevity, but you’ve just made the leap from “God doesn’t share His plans with me explicitly and in my ear” to “God doesn’t care about me.” That’s just illogical. (Interestingly, I’ve never seen a non-believer offer rationale or evidence for that claim…!)

Agreed. (Are you surprised? I hope not.) The principle is incorrect. Every claim is subject to the same process. To substantiate it to the level of acceptance for the (reasonable) skeptics.

For mundane, everyday claims we simply forego the requirement for rigorous substantiation, because it is not worth it - it is a waste of time. But when the claim is of high importance - and the existence of God is (arguably) the most important claim of all - then we are within our “rights” to demand the most rigorous substantiation process. And that is where the apologists fail.

Ah, but what “rigorous substantiation process” are we talking about? The one we’ve agreed isn’t useful outside the physical realm? One that you would identify a priori as “insufficient” or “non-existent”? What always gets at me is the assertion – attempting to put on the guise of being reasonable – that a proof is needed and will be considered, when often, the dynamic really is “I’m not going to accept any approach you take in this discussion.” (At least, that’s how it appears to me on this side of this fence from time to time…)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The physical event itself is subject to verification; the assertion that there is no known cause is one that can be accepted as a conclusion to the search for evidence; but, it’s the claim of a miracle that cannot be empirically verified.

The actual event is not in question. The explanation is where the problem occurs. We are faced with the so-called boundary problem. The event occurred in the physical realm, the cause in the non-physical one.

Let’s look at a specific example, the transubstantiation. The starting piece is the bread, and the wine. The ending piece is the actual body and blood of Jesus (which part?). Both are in this physical realm, but all the evidence shows that they are just bread and wine. So the claim of “miracle” is not born out by the evidence.

The same kind of problem occurs with the so-called paranormal claims. There is really NO difference between the paranormal claims and the supernatural claims. The proponents assert that there is “something” mystical, paranormal “out there”, and we cannot explain it. Of course competent stage magicians can replicate their “miracles” without the claim for “paranormal” powers. As such the only rational conclusion is that the claims of the paranormal are very probably bogus. Not necessarily bogus, “merely” very probably bogus.

But, what we usually hear is “your claims cannot be proven, and therefore, they’re bunk.”

I never said that. I explicitly deny the claim that only empirical methods can lead to truth statements.

And, those kind of physical claims aren’t what tend to get debated in these contexts. It’s rarely “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, but rather, “you cannot claim that angels exist.”

Well, we can try the angels, if you want. There are “guardian angels”, according to the mythology. They are supposed to be “guarding” us… and yet, there is no evidence.

However, our kids think we don’t care about them when we make them go to bed early, or punish them for misbehavior, or do any number of things whose goals they do not see. If you want to make the ‘children’ analogy, then ok, there’s a wider gap between God and us than between our kids and us.

Yes, and no. Both we, adults and God are supposed to be rational beings, while children and the mentally impaired are not. If a child does not comprehend, we can “downsize” the explanation to their level. God could do that, but does not. If a parent does not even acknowledge the child’s request, then the child can reasonably assume that the parent does not care. And, of course, the actual existence of the parent is not in question.

Perhaps it was out of brevity, but you’ve just made the leap from “God doesn’t share His plans with me explicitly and in my ear” to “God doesn’t care about me.” That’s just illogical. (Interestingly, I’ve never seen a non-believer offer rationale or evidence for that claim…!)

Sure there is a good rationale. Just look at the millions and billions of intercessory prayers (not the meditative ones) where the person asks for something tangible, and out of the ordinary. What percentage of those supplications is “fulfilled” in a positive fashion?

Ah, but what “rigorous substantiation process” are we talking about? The one we’ve agreed isn’t useful outside the physical realm? One that you would identify a priori as “insufficient” or “non-existent”? What always gets at me is the assertion – attempting to put on the guise of being reasonable – that a proof is needed and will be considered, when often, the dynamic really is “I’m not going to accept any approach you take in this discussion.” (At least, that’s how it appears to me on this side of this fence from time to time…)

Ok. That is where a conversation could be interesting. You are more than welcome to offer a process. The only requirement is that it should be objective. But remember, if it happens in our realm, it is subject to the verification process.

You are not expected to give a substantiation process for the claim that the Angels won the game against the Demons - as long as the game was played in the Purgatory. But if you claim that it was played in the Allianz Arena in Munich, then you must offer a physical evidence.

 

[reggieM]

For the sake of argument, what does rising from the dead prove about Jesus? That He is the Messiah or that He is G-d? Maybe both, or maybe neither? In Deuteronomy, Moses teaches the Jewish people to beware of miracles as proof of anything. How do we know that Jesus Himself caused this to happen and not G-d apart from Jesus, or neither? Surely G-d can perform this miracle if He can perform other miracles, as both Moses and Jesus demonstrated. Is there anything G-d cannot do provided it is consistent with His nature? In short, what is the rising of Jesus from the dead physical evidence of?

Good questions. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time asked similar things. Some said basically “He does these miracles by the power of Satan”. I found that interesting that even at that time, they understood that evil spirits could work deceptive signs.
But Jesus Himself pointed to His miracles as evidence of his divinity. He knew that words alone would not do it. His own people were skilled in understanding the texts - so Jesus had to show more.
Other Jewish leaders argued basically "nobody could do such things if He was not from God’. I notice the Gospel uses that term “from God”, which is something that could be said about any true prophet. They didn’t immediately conclude that Jesus was God, even though they were amazed by the miracles.
But the resurrection was the fulfillment of all the other miracles of healing, blessing, power over nature, etc. Jesus said that His resurrection would be a sign that what He claimed for Himself was true. So, He established the resurrection as a validation point.
“I claimed that I am the Son of God. I will prove that because I will be killed and then on the third day after, I will rise from the dead.”
So, it’s not just the fact that He rose from the dead. As you say, that could have meant anything. But Jesus said that His resurrection was meant, not merely as a sign of power, but as a validation that His teachings about God and about Himself were true - that they had really come from heaven.

 

[Thom18]

Up until this point you are “almost” fine. No one assumes that the apologists are brainwashed or liars. They are simply mistaken.

No one? Citation needed. This is the default response I get from atheists anywhere but here. And based on the similar dialogues posted by you and others, you’ve posted similar experiences.

If God does not want to “save” everyone, then why should anyone worship him?

It’s not that God wants anyone to go to hell, but that He gives every person both free will and enough grace to accept Him or not. It’s a free choice. I still don’t understand where atheists get, "God must not want everyone to be saved " based on the fact that He doesn’t do what they think He should do.

And here you left the field of rational discourse and stepped into the quagmire of “blind faith”.

Rational discourse ended when the atheist in my example believed that the creator of the universe had to do what they wanted Him to do, or else He couldn’t really desire what the theist claimed a certain religion believes.

 

[meltzerboy]

Good questions. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time asked similar things. Some said basically “He does these miracles by the power of Satan”. I found that interesting that even at that time, they understood that evil spirits could work deceptive signs.
But Jesus Himself pointed to His miracles as evidence of his divinity. He knew that words alone would not do it. His own people were skilled in understanding the texts - so Jesus had to show more.
Other Jewish leaders argued basically "nobody could do such things if He was not from God’. I notice the Gospel uses that term “from God”, which is something that could be said about any true prophet. They didn’t immediately conclude that Jesus was God, even though they were amazed by the miracles.
But the resurrection was the fulfillment of all the other miracles of healing, blessing, power over nature, etc. Jesus said that His resurrection would be a sign that what He claimed for Himself was true. So, He established the resurrection as a validation point.
“I claimed that I am the Son of God. I will prove that because I will be killed and then on the third day after, I will rise from the dead.”
So, it’s not just the fact that He rose from the dead. As you say, that could have meant anything. But Jesus said that His resurrection was meant, not merely as a sign of power, but as a validation that His teachings about God and about Himself were true - that they had really come from heaven.

The thing is that ANY Jewish person of the time who was knowledgeable in the Law, as Jesus is purported to have been, would NOT have claimed divinity on the basis of performing miracles. Further, NO learned Jewish individual among the Pharisees or Sadducees–including Nicodemus–would have been convinced of Jesus’ divinity on the basis of miracles. Miracles per se were not regarded as evidence of anything, including the Messiah. Indeed, as I noted, in the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses admonished the people NOT to believe in the miracles or signs of a future dreamer or prophet who might lead them away from the G-d they knew. To this very day, Jews are particularly skeptical of miracles.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The question comes up periodically when there is a conversation between a Christian and an atheist.

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “That is ridiculous. God is not a physical being.”
Atheist: “I heard that God can manifest himself in a human form. Is it not true?”
Christian: “Yes, it is true”. “But how dare you demand that God should be at your beck and call?”.
Atheist: “I did not demand anything. You asked a question, and I replied”.

Are you interested in playing the role of that Christian?

The kingdom of God is spread across this world, but men do not see it. God is evident everywhere, but there are those who are blind to His presence. I can’t convince people of God’s existence if they are stubbornly blind to God. First they have to open up and then they will see the light.

 

[reggieM]

The thing is that ANY Jewish person of the time who was knowledgeable in the Law, as Jesus is purported to have been, would NOT have claimed divinity on the basis of performing miracles.

It wasn’t miracles alone, but miracles, prophecy, moral life and teaching. But aside from that, on what basis would a person claim divinity?

Further, NO learned Jewish individual among the Pharisees or Sadducees–including Nicodemus–would have been convinced of Jesus’ divinity on the basis of miracles. Miracles per se were not regarded as evidence of anything, including the Messiah. Indeed, as I noted, in the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses admonished the people NOT to believe in the miracles or signs of a future dreamer or prophet who might lead them away from the G-d they knew. To this very day, Jews are particularly skeptical of miracles.

I can see that but we do have Moses referencing miracles quite frequently as a sign of God’s presence and guidance of the Jewish people. In fact, he admonishes the people to consider the works (miracles) God did in the desert. The manna and the water from the rock.
But I think once the people were bound together as a nation/family of God, then miracles were more of a problem than a blessing. But isn’t it true that all the prophets that followed Moses used miracles to prove their divine calling? Otherwise, how would anyone know they were prophets?

When John the Baptist’s disciples asked Jesus if he was the Messiah, Jesus told them to consider what they saw - the blind see, the lepers cleansed, the lame walk, the poor have the Gospel preached to them (that’s an interesting one).

So, yes - there can be some skepticism but I think Jesus was demanding some kind of explanation. Nobody could maintain that the miracles didn’t happen. So, all that is left after that is that He was a deceiver or it was the power of Satan. But they saw that Jesus was driving out demons, so he asked why Satan would drive himself out of people who were possessed. Admittedly, beyond that, all he could say was that they saw these things, heard what he had to say – and in the end, they would be judged for the way they responded to his message. That seems harsh against people who were very oriented towards maintaining the Law, but it was a challenge to look deeper.

Given the skepticism of of the people and teachers (as you noted) as well as the ingrained moral concepts from years of observing the law – I find it amazing that Jesus did have any Jewish followers at all, but he really did have many, both before and after he rose from the dead.

 

[meltzerboy]

It wasn’t miracles alone, but miracles, prophecy, moral life and teaching. But aside from that, on what basis would a person claim divinity?

I can see that but we do have Moses referencing miracles quite frequently as a sign of God’s presence and guidance of the Jewish people. In fact, he admonishes the people to consider the works (miracles) God did in the desert. The manna and the water from the rock.
But I think once the people were bound together as a nation/family of God, then miracles were more of a problem than a blessing. But isn’t it true that all the prophets that followed Moses used miracles to prove their divine calling? Otherwise, how would anyone know they were prophets?

When John the Baptist’s disciples asked Jesus if he was the Messiah, Jesus told them to consider what they saw - the blind see, the lepers cleansed, the lame walk, the poor have the Gospel preached to them (that’s an interesting one).

So, yes - there can be some skepticism but I think Jesus was demanding some kind of explanation. Nobody could maintain that the miracles didn’t happen. So, all that is left after that is that He was a deceiver or it was the power of Satan. But they saw that Jesus was driving out demons, so he asked why Satan would drive himself out of people who were possessed. Admittedly, beyond that, all he could say was that they saw these things, heard what he had to say – and in the end, they would be judged for the way they responded to his message. That seems harsh against people who were very oriented towards maintaining the Law, but it was a challenge to look deeper.

Given the skepticism of of the people and teachers (as you noted) as well as the ingrained moral concepts from years of observing the law – I find it amazing that Jesus did have any Jewish followers at all, but he really did have many, both before and after he rose from the dead.

Moses was referencing the miracles that G-D did, NOT the miracles that he did. To answer your first question–"On what basis would a person claim divinity?–there is, according to Judaism, NO basis on which a person would claim divinity!

 

[reggieM]

Moses was referencing the miracles that G-D did, NOT the miracles that he did. To answer your first question–"On what basis would a person claim divinity?–there is, according to Judaism, NO basis on which a person would claim divinity!

Ok, fair enough. Jesus, knowing that, knew also he was going to have a very difficult time getting the message of His divinity across. So, He started with those who would not have cared as much about that criteria - the outcast, poor, despised. His toughest critics would be the educated class and the Sanhedrin itself.
That’s been an argument against Jesus’ teaching from the very beginning. That He was a rabble-rouser, appealing to the lowest classes - the uneducated, unlettered.
The conversion of St. Paul actually followed the same pattern - it was entirely by divine power and not at all by argument or apologetics.
The history of Christianity in those early years was the same. It was “by power” and not by argument. The apostles healed and raised the dead.
So, at the very least, Jesus would start with those who were, themselves healed of illness or of demons. They’d have first hand experience and a lot of gratitude. They would follow Him. After that, those who witnessed the healings. It’s the same today - people who witness Catholic exorcisms often have a deep conversion. It’s not a result of an intellectual argument but through a mystical experience.
To communicate his message, that He is the Messiah of the Jews and more than that, He is God incarnated as a human, Jesus had to do something more than just make the claim. It actually took Him a while to convince His own apostles, and they had already seen several miracles. So, we might wonder what actually convinced them all (even St. Thomas after 3 years with Jesus still doubted) - and it was the resurrection.

 

[goout]

The question comes up periodically when there is a conversation between a Christian and an atheist.

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “That is ridiculous. God is not a physical being.”
Atheist: “I heard that God can manifest himself in a human form. Is it not true?”
Christian: “Yes, it is true”. “But how dare you demand that God should be at your beck and call?”.
Atheist: “I did not demand anything. You asked a question, and I replied”.

Are you interested in playing the role of that Christian?

Straw man.

 

[tonyrey]

Nah, didn’t step in it, I don’t think.

The physical event itself is subject to verification; the assertion that there is no known cause is one that can be accepted as a conclusion to the search for evidence; but, it’s the claim of a miracle that cannot be empirically verified.

But, what we usually hear is “your claims cannot be proven, and therefore, they’re bunk.”

And, those kind of physical claims aren’t what tend to get debated in these contexts. It’s rarely “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, but rather, “you cannot claim that angels exist.”

(And, although ‘freely asserted’ sometimes holds, the more common situation (IMHO) is that we each make our claims – and each of us thinking that they’re substantiated and reasonable – and then we freely deny the others’ claims, thinking their not to be thus. )

However, our kids think we don’t care about them when we make them go to bed early, or punish them for misbehavior, or do any number of things whose goals they do not see. If you want to make the ‘children’ analogy, then ok, there’s a wider gap between God and us than between our kids and us. Why, then, do we insist we know better than Him and know that our plan is better than his? It smacks of a certain childish immaturity to conclude “He just doesn’t love us or care for us”; that’s what our children say when they’re acting churlish. Perhaps it was out of brevity, but you’ve just made the leap from “God doesn’t share His plans with me explicitly and in my ear” to “God doesn’t care about me.” That’s just illogical. (Interestingly, I’ve never seen a non-believer offer rationale or evidence for that claim…!)

Ah, but what “rigorous substantiation process” are we talking about? The one we’ve agreed isn’t useful outside the physical realm? One that you would identify a priori as “insufficient” or “non-existent”? What always gets at me is the assertion – attempting to put on the guise of being reasonable – that a proof is needed and will be considered, when often, the dynamic really is “I’m not going to accept any approach you take in this discussion.” (At least, that’s how it appears to me on this side of this fence from time to time…)

It is ironic how materialists claim to be reasonable when they derive reasoning from mindless events. It certainly explains why they reach unreasonable conclusions! After all “What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call ‘thought’?” - David Hume

 

[tonyrey]

Ok, fair enough. Jesus, knowing that, knew also he was going to have a very difficult time getting the message of His divinity across. So, He started with those who would not have cared as much about that criteria - the outcast, poor, despised. His toughest critics would be the educated class and the Sanhedrin itself.
That’s been an argument against Jesus’ teaching from the very beginning. That He was a rabble-rouser, appealing to the lowest classes - the uneducated, unlettered.
The conversion of St. Paul actually followed the same pattern - it was entirely by divine power and not at all by argument or apologetics.
The history of Christianity in those early years was the same. It was “by power” and not by argument. The apostles healed and raised the dead.
So, at the very least, Jesus would start with those who were, themselves healed of illness or of demons. They’d have first hand experience and a lot of gratitude. They would follow Him. After that, those who witnessed the healings. It’s the same today - people who witness Catholic exorcisms often have a deep conversion. It’s not a result of an intellectual argument but through a mystical experience.
To communicate his message, that He is the Messiah of the Jews and more than that, He is God incarnated as a human, Jesus had to do something more than just make the claim. It actually took Him a while to convince His own apostles, and they had already seen several miracles. So, we might wonder what actually convinced them all (even St. Thomas after 3 years with Jesus still doubted) - and it was the resurrection.

:clapping: A superb analysis, Reggie.