@ Interbane

A person may have explored every part of his belief system in detail, but still missed a critical link that would expose the entire system as false. Those nuggets of contradiction are often surrounded by an impenetrable shell of fuzzy wording, bias, and equivocation.

Flip the analysis around. In a desire to find falsehood, people often create their own contradictions as well. There is bias in every person. The challenge is to read as neutrally as possible by being aware of our own bias.

Did you have any beliefs before, as an atheist/agnostic?

We're talking roughly 35 years as an Atheist/Agnostic, so obviously there is development and change along the path. Like most people, I explored various beliefs and rejected them all, while at the same time toying with certain elements of them which I found interesting, or which agreed with what I already believed.

We all have a belief system. Our own.

I think you're confusing a sense of belonging/love with what I'm talking about. Certainly that is part of it, but merely part.

How do you know it's justified?

Justified in the sense of being a valid logical choice. Even if a person were to be proven fraudulent later, this doesn't mean that the person trusting them did not make a valid, logically justifiable choice in trusting them at the time.

I'm just seeking to demonstrate that the idea of logical/rational choice has different possible sources of 'evidence.'

Uh, the claims are also the proof? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. As they are extraordinary claims, without actual evidence the most obvious explanation is that they are made-up stories. If you were to read the stories of 100 other religions -- or how about one other religion -- would you believe them all?

Wow Dexter. Please pardon me if I'm reading your post incorrectly, but do you always answer polite replies with such sarcasm and condescension? You mentioned in another post that you were a teacher. I am as well, with experience teaching in several countries and education systems, both public and private. I sincerely hope this isn't the tone you use with your students when they have a viewpoint that differs from your own.

You are confusing the claims with the proof. The claim of Jesus was that he was the Messiah, the Son of Man, and that the kingdom of God promised in the Jewish scriptures had been fulfilled in and through him. The things I mentioned were written in the gospel accounts as witness to this.

As to other religions, I have read, discussed with adherents/teachers and explored in various depth:
Islam (the Qur'an and the Hadith)
Taoism (mainly the core Dao De Jing)
Chan/Zen Buddhism
Hinayana Buddhism
various Native American beliefs
Celtic beliefs
Northern European/Germanic beliefs
the Bhagavad Gita
Judaism
Baha'i
Mormonism
Wicca

I'm probably missing some, but I wouldn't say I've read 100. It's partially because I've read these though that I hold the books of the Bible to be truthful. If you'd care to discuss any of these topics, I would be happy to do so.

I endeavor to hold myself to respectfulful and gentle replies because this is what Jesus teaches. Please correct me if I do not hold to this ideal.

@ Interbane, Robert, and Dexter as well, since you all touch on this.

Chris OConnor wrote:What is the extraordinary evidence that the gospel accounts are not fiction?

Evidence has more than a scientific connotation, as in a court of law for example.

As in a court of law, there may be material evidence, but there may also be witnesses as well. The gospel accounts are precisely this. Either first or second-hand accounts of the life of Jesus, as Luke makes explicit in the opening of his gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
(Luke 1:1-2)

They are not neutral accounts, but the writings of followers of Christ who were convinced of his claims, and who were seeking to 'prove' this to others as well.

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:3)

Part of the 'extraordinary evidence' of the truth of the biblical accounts was in the lives of the people who wrote them, since these were living, active teachers while the letters of the New Testament circulated. A group of common people suddenly left their jobs, lives and culture (since they were eventually barred from synagogue life) and followed this Jesus unto the point of death.

Is any of this evidence incontrovertible? Absolutely not. It makes clearly extraordinary claims even in the evidence provided, and it is open to question on many different levels. It is entirely a plausible response to see it as fiction.

The Bible never makes the claim that all men will accept Jesus. That said, the Bible does say, "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." (Matthew 7:8) Part of the extraordinary 'evidence' of the Bible is the claim that God will reveal truth if asked. I can only say that for myself this was the case.

@ Interbane

Even a TRUE extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. How else can we sort the wheat from the chaff? If you have any ideas, please share them.

Normally the term 'extraordinary evidence' would refer to an overwhelming mass of unassailable proof. The evidence in support of the theory of evolution or continental drift might be examples of this.

In the specific case we're looking at though, I would say that there will never be sufficient extraordinary evidence to prove the claims of Jesus to all people (barring the second coming of Christ in Christian belief).

There are many reasons for this, but the primary one from a theological standpoint is that the claims of Jesus himself would be invalidated should proof be incontrovertible. He says in several places that few will follow his path, and the general point is that an act of trust in God is required of us. Because of our own brokeness, few are ever willing to really reach out in trust.

Does this mean that there is no possible proof? Absolutely not. It merely means that from a Christian standpoint, the gaining of that proof itself requires an act of trust.

If the God of the Bible exists, then ask him to show sufficient personal proof. The attitude of the heart in asking is obviously important. The evidence may not come in our timing, or the ways we expect, but if He exists then it will come.

Chris OConnor wrote:http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -question/

Thanks for posting this Chris, as it made me think about a key point.

People on both sides of the God debate often bring up contentions of logical fallacy. I think it's important to consider what a logical fallacy actually 'is.'

In simple language, a logical fallacy means that the point raised cannot be used to PROVE a logical point. In other words, it is insufficient to allow uncontested proof of the premise. This doesn't mean that the 'logical fallacy' is necessarily false or untrue in itself (though they can be). It simply means that you can't use a logical fallacy to prove something, because the logical fallacy itself is not 'provable.'

Please note though. Part of my contention is that the truth of Biblical claims cannot proven by logic alone.

Doulos wrote: Wow Dexter. Please pardon me if I'm reading your post incorrectly, but do you always answer polite replies with such sarcasm and condescension? You mentioned in another post that you were a teacher. I am as well, with experience teaching in several countries and education systems, both public and private. I sincerely hope this isn't the tone you use with your students when they have a viewpoint that differs from your own.

No, I don't. As I'm sure you realize, there are different rules and expectations when it comes to internet discussions with strangers. I didn't mean to offend with my tone, just having a little fun. I may be impatient when it comes to theists inverting normal standards of proof.

Doulos wrote: They are not neutral accounts, but the writings of followers of Christ who were convinced of his claims, and who were seeking to 'prove' this to others as well. ..
Part of the 'extraordinary evidence' of the truth of the biblical accounts was in the lives of the people who wrote them, since these were living, active teachers while the letters of the New Testament circulated. A group of common people suddenly left their jobs, lives and culture (since they were eventually barred from synagogue life) and followed this Jesus unto the point of death..

The sincerity of believers does not get you very far at all. People have believed and have been willing to die for beliefs throughout history. Surely that hardly counts for evidence.

Doulos, your courtesy is appreciated. Dexter expresses a very reasonable frustration, that science generally finds it incomprehensible that people believe things that are simply false. You assert that Luke's claims to be writing history constitute evidence. Yet Luke wrote generations after the supposed time of Christ, and derived his historical fables from Mark. If Jesus was real, and not a myth, it defies credibility that the "evidence" is so late and so embedded in texts whose primary objective is to inculcate religious belief.

A lot of current research argues that the actual evidence is far more compatible with the invention of Christ than with the supposed 'big bang' of expansion of Christianity from a single historical founder. Paul barely quotes Jesus, and then only in ways that suggest a cultic archetype rather than a real person. The supposed external evidence such as from Josephus is blatant fabrication. Writers such as Philo who would have written about Jesus if he was real are silent. Earl Doherty's Jesus Neither God Nor Man presents a comprehensive logical and evidentiary demolition of the Historical Jesus hypothesis.

Far more plausible is the idea that ancient religion involved cosmic mysteries that were seen as distasteful to the Jewish Yahweh cult, and these Gnostic traditions were suppressed by the political agenda of making Jesus the basis of imperial stability for Rome. Reconstructing the fragments of Gnostic stellar myths presents a far more scientific approach to early Christianity than any effort to rehabilitate the tired old supernatural fantasies. This scientific method opens the prospect of Christianity being reconciled with science, discarding the supernatural weeds in favour of the fertile seeds of natural reality.

All supernatural ideas are incompatible with science. There is no evidence whatsoever for any supernatural claims, and much psychological evidence for how such claims can grow into believable myths that resonate with popular emotional desires. Wishing does not make it so. Truth can only be assessed against rigorous observation and logical coherence. Christian dogmas such as the cross and resurrection and even the virgin birth have a symbolic beauty and meaning, but the evidence of continuity with older myth indicates they were invented, not based on true history.

Hi Doulos, welcome to booktalk!

Doulos:
The gospel accounts are that 'extraordinary evidence.'

Divine birth
Miracles
Fulfilled prophesies
Claims of divinity
Death and resurrection
Meeting his disciples after resurrection
Raising to heaven

As others have pointed out the above does not constitute evidence, especially not extraordinary evidence. Let me show you by example.

I contend that I have built a rocket ship that will get me to mars and back in under a week.

That is an extraordinary claim. It needs extraordinary evidence.

Here’s my evidence, a 300 page document where I explain how anti-ion propulsion technology harnesses the power of cosmic string vibrations to subvert the constraints of inertia. I have testimonials from Dr. Robert Smith who writes “I have witnessed this ship first hand. It is definitely real, and will definitely fly to mars and back in under a week.” I have further testimonials from Professor Erin Flieslots, who says “I have personally driven the anti-ion drive ship past the moon and back on several test runs.”

In addition to these testimonials there are also diagrams and images of the anti-ion propulsion system.

MARS OR BUST

Outside of this document, my testimony, and the testimony of everybody who is employed by me, like those who run my website, or those who work for my promotional company, or those who have invested in my company on the basis of this same 300 page document, there is no confirming evidence for my statements.

By your standards, the extraordinary evidence can be listed as follows.

Eyewitness testimony of the ship’s existence

Reliable accounts of flying the ship, and of witnessing the ship flying.

The ship has already made several test flights past the moon.

The ship uses cutting edge anti-ion technology which is vastly superior to anything in development by my competitors.

The engine harnesses cosmic string vibrations to generate thrust, this is beyond our current technology, and so probably can make it to mars and back in under a week.


You can see in my example why the things listed do not in any way constitute evidence, much less extraordinary evidence, and no matter how many people have been convinced by this 300 page document outlining exactly how the anti-ion thrust ship can get to mars and back in less than a week, it is still a circular set of reasonings that rely on the claims as evidence for themselves.

Evidence has more than a scientific connotation, as in a court of law for example.

As in a court of law, there may be material evidence, but there may also be witnesses as well. The gospel accounts are precisely this. Either first or second-hand accounts of the life of Jesus, as Luke makes explicit in the opening of his gospel:

I was also referring to evidence that is allowable in court. Including witnesses. You have none. You have a book instead. That's the truth of it, unfortunately. The book can't be considered admissable as an "ancient document" in court due to the unknown chain of possession.

If it were, you would still need a mountain of ordinary evidence in conjunction with the bible to offset the precedent. Even in the court of law.

In my experience, people who support the bible want extremely low standards of support for their belief to be accepted. An entire nation of people. There is a reason the word "faith" is used, but so many new up and comers believe they have PROOF that their belief is true. In every case I've encountered, they have no understanding of the distinction between proof and evidence. They have no clue what constitutes justified evidence, either legally or scientifically. It's no wonder we have people believing in every fantasy under the sun.

In the specific case we're looking at though, I would say that there will never be sufficient extraordinary evidence to prove the claims of Jesus to all people (barring the second coming of Christ in Christian belief).

That is why you only have "faith" to justify your belief(I don't consider faith a justification of belief). Not evidence, and certainly not proof. I believe you continue to misuse the word "proof" as well, Doulos. If you had proof, no matter the archetype, it would mean your belief is incontrovertible and all the critics on this website would change their minds if they saw it. Unless you have something new, that I haven't seen in my roughly 10,000 hours of studying the debate between science and religion, then I'd humbly claim you're mistaken.

Flip the analysis around. In a desire to find falsehood, people often create their own contradictions as well. There is bias in every person. The challenge is to read as neutrally as possible by being aware of our own bias.

I wasn't making any exceptions. Upside down or inside out, we all have bias. In our desire to find anything, we often create contradictions. I agree with you here, and suggest that it's more impactful and severe than you realize. I've made it a habit to familiarize myself with as types of bias as I can. I recognize them often within myself. Damping the bias is like pulling a sliver, but necessary.

The majority of my experience with intelligent religious people is that they become frustrated to a point where they submit fully to their bias, and don't spare an ounce of effort to overcome it. It's a curious pattern. For most people on this site, if you point out bias they will admit it. Except myself, I'll just get hateful and call you names.

I'm just seeking to demonstrate that the idea of logical/rational choice has different possible sources of 'evidence.'

If it is to remain logical and rational, your options are limited. Brainstorm at will. Google it also. Find the support you're looking for. I hope you succeed.

In simple language, a logical fallacy means that the point raised cannot be used to PROVE a logical point. In other words, it is insufficient to allow uncontested proof of the premise. This doesn't mean that the 'logical fallacy' is necessarily false or untrue in itself (though they can be). It simply means that you can't use a logical fallacy to prove something, because the logical fallacy itself is not 'provable.'

Yes, a fallacy is neutral. Many use it as if it were evidence of a false claim. A claim isn't false because of a fallacy, but the fallacy does not support it. Your use of the word "prove" makes me anxious. Proof is a rare thing.

Doulos wrote:

DWill wrote: Can you explain to me why meaning needs to reside in a power outside of ourselves? Even if the universe has no meaning, why does that make meaning impossible for me?

You have two excellent questions here, so I'll take them in turn.

Meaning does not need to reside in a power outside of ourselves. Neither does there scientifically 'need' to be a God, which is where Christians and Muslims often feel challenged by evolution. The question is not whether there 'needs' to be, but whether there IS a power outside of ourselves. And if so, does he/she deserve our worship and obedience.

Meaning is not impossible in a meaningless universe. I was simply seeking to demonstrate that existance with God offers a 'greater' potential meaning than without. This was in response to Dexter's May 20th post.

Thanks for the good questions DWill. If I've missed any of your nuances, please let me know and I'll try to answer them as best I can.

I appreciate your reply, Doulos, and your openness and courtesy. I was confused initially because I thought I had responded to ant's post, yet you replied as if you were the author of that post. Now ant and you have somewhat similar views, but you can't be the same person...can you?