WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

If you'd be kind enough to point me in the direction of a historian at the time, rather than anonymous authors many decades later, that can detail evidence regarding the existence of jesus and the incidence of resurrection I'd be grateful.

To an outsider it does just sound like another story regarding a son of a god and a miraculous recovery from death, many other religions predating Christianity had the same stories.

 

Authorship is only one small part of validating something historically. It's possible for a historian to write garbage, and it's equally possible for laypeople to record events accurately. For what it's worth, most historians agree that Jesus did exist, but at the end of the day it means nothing - so what if he existed? It doesn't validate the Christian faith if a man called Jesus existed, so the argument against Jesus' existence is pointless anyway.

 

It is exactly that, just a story and nothing more.

 

And your counterargument is...? "Just sounds like a story" is not a valid argument.

 

In the scientific framework, if there are plausible alternative explanations for the evidence, then it does not prove your hypothesis. There is no such thing as "evidence for those who have an open mind". Science is pretty absolute like that.

But in my mind the need for "evidence" or "proof" is the weakest stance religion can take anyway. It is a spiritual philosophy: it is about the values and meaning you ascribe to your life. It has nothing to do with proof --it shouldn't have to. You believe what you believe because it makes meaningful sense to you. In that regard I like to quote Stuart Chase:

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

And when one accepts that, one stops wanting to convert, persecute or judge others and starts paying attention to how one lives one's own life, and why.

 

There is no proof of the God hypothesis (nor any other hypothesis), not that I care for it anyway - I didn't claim I could prove anything. Evidence and proof are entirely different things: evidence suggests, proof is certain. If I hear a theist say "I can prove God exists," I usually shut off. There are arguments for God's existence, but no proofs; there are arguments for various hypotheses regarding the cause of the Big Bang, but no proofs.

But I still disagree that the Christian worldview has nothing to do with proof - the very reason for the resurrection was proof that Jesus was who he claimed to be. You are right in that I require no proof outside of the Bible, but people who say there is an "absolute lack of evidence" miss the point. Lack of proof now, yes, but certainly not an absolute lack of evidence.

 

What evidence is there? The two examples you provided before appear to point to nothing more than a gap in our knowledge, they don't provide evidence for a creator. Also, what rational explanation can you provide for how a creator was created in the first place?

 

Evidence is not proof. Let's mull over that one for a while - saying there is evidence for God is to say that God is a reasonable and rational hypothesis based on what we know.

Evidence is, as the dictionary defines it, grounds for belief, because evidence suggests. The examples I provided point in many directions, and it is up to us to use our capacity for reason and analyse the plethora of hypotheses. Does the evidence suggest that everything happened by chance? From a fine-tuning standpoint, highly improbable, which is what leads many scientists to posit design, and therefore a designer.

My examples "appear to point to nothing" because you've obviously not evaluated them. If they point to nothing, please give me a detailed analysis of how you arrived at that conclusion.

These are enormous subjects to cover, and although I covered the subjects in two paragraphs, I didn't reach a conclusion in two paragraphs.

 

I didn't say they pointed to nothing, I said they pointed to nothing more than a gap in our knowledge. As in we don't know precisely what happened so are guessing, hence the many hypotheses. I don't however see anything in either of the examples which would lead to a reasonable and rational hypothesis for God existing and having been responsible. And given that you are the one positing this to be the case the onus is on you to support that claim, rather than simply stating that they do and then requiring others to demonstrate that not to be the case. Personally I would be interested to know what rational and reasonable explanation you have for how God came about in the first place as I can't see how you could use him to explain other events rationally or reasonably without this.

 

This may be the best post I've ever read on these forums.

 

What? Jesus' words and actions not enough? The value and meaning is in those, not in the parlour tricks ascribed to him. If anything, those "miracles" detract from his words and actions. People get mesmerised by the smoke and mirrors, and totally miss the message.

 

bit selective on your definition there

Evidence

1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Oxford
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination​

​

Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
without evidence, they can’t bring a charge
signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in​

From that we can see that evidence does not suggest, it makes clear, it shows, it makes plain and it is proof. you can use evidence to show that a belief is true. you can not use it to say "the evidence doesn't show that this can't have happened."

 

Guessing? Guesswork is ungrounded and fanciful; hypotheses are grounded and reasonable. Not knowing precisely what happened does not mean we cannot form valid hypotheses... just because you consider them invalid does not make them so!

That's fine - I do.

You aren't demonstrating anything; you are simply claiming that you "don't see it." Sorry... that's not a valid counterargument. I answered the question of evidence and didn't simply "state" it.. I supported it with an explanation of why it is considered evidence and why the corollary hypothesis is held by many scientists as valid and reasonable.

We're talking about scientific evidence here... this isn't a court of law or a murder investigation. Scientific evidence is garnered to support hypotheses; it cannot prove them, otherwise they would cease to be hypotheses by definition; similarly, a hypothesis with no scientific evidence to support it also ceases to be a hypothesis and is merely a guess (the scientific nomenclature is "working hypothesis").

Meaning that you ascribe; we ascribe meaning differently.

 

Indeed. I ascribe meaning to his philosophy, not the miracles. Miracles teach people nothing, because people cannot perform nor understand miracles. It's like showing a caveman my iPhone. But to show people the importance of kindness, tolerance and forgiveness, that teaches them something. That has meaning and value.

 

I agree we can form valid hypotheses but as you say they have to be grounded and reasonable. They also have to be supported by the evidence. Invoking an unexplainable supernatural entity to fill in a gap in knowledge is neither grounded or reasonable.

Fine, how do those examples lead to a reasonable and rational hypothesis for God's existence? Where does God come from in order to be able to create the big bang or fine tune the universe? If you can't explain how God comes about in the first place to do these things then how is it reasonable or rational to invoke him as the explanation for them?

I never said I was demonstrating anything, my point was that the onus isn't on me to do that. As the person making the claim the onus is on you to support said claim. You haven't provided an explanation as to how either of the examples you provided are considered evidence for the existence of god, you merely stated that they were considered evidence. Saying that the cause for the big bang must exist outside space-time isn't an explanation of how that is evidence for the existence of god or how such a hypothesis based on that evidence would be valid or reasonable. And who are these many scientists you speak of?

 

But there is no evidence for a God aside from the many versions of the Bible, just because the big bang theory cannot explain what happened before the event it describes that does not mean that a creator is required or even a valid explanation. The fine tuning argument also provides no support for there being a creator, it is more likely that it is chance that the current iteration of the universe we live in is just perfectly tuned to create life as we know it.

 

@ Krazeh,

Reason isn't spelled out for you by other people; you have to reason things yourself.

If we hold different opinions on what constitutes a reasonable and valid hypothesis (which we clearly do), then the dialogue has reached an impasse - no matter what explanation I provide, you will maintain that it is unreasonable, and I will maintain that it is reasonable, ad infinitum. Similarly, I would posit that the alternative hypothesis of "it all happened by chance" is unreasonable, but the unreasonability of that hypothesis is my perception based on my evaluation of the facts.

And there are thousands (if not millions) of scientists the world over who believe that the Big Bang points to a creator. Why does it matter who they are?

@ Nexxo,

I totally agree that Jesus' philosophy has profound value even in a secular world, but his miracles weren't an extension of his philosophy and had nothing to do with teaching - he performed miracles solely to demonstrate his divinity.

 

It is very important that you provide some examples as evidence for your argument, not just logical reasoning as to what we are arguing about.

 

My statement about scientists is not an argument; it is an observation which is pertinent to the debate. And my question was rhetorical - it doesn't matter who they are; it matters what they are: scientists.

 

Well at least we are all still free to believe what we like, I believe that the world would be a much better and more advanced place without organised religion. I am happy that we can all have our own personal beliefs.