Atticus_Finch

There was a wonderful response to my earlier topic "Logical Inconsistency of Atheism". I enjoyed the exchange immensely. Now, as promised, I will move on to explain why I believe in the Christian God.

First, a disclaimer. My review of the available evidence has led me to the conclusion that the Christian God, as described in the Bible, exists. There is substantial and credible evidence for His existence. I do not suppose, however, that the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt.

When I use the words "proof" or "evidence" I am refering to facts which tend to support the proposition at issue. "Proof" or "evidence" does not mean the fact is uncontradicted or beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will make reference to the Christian bible. I will not assume its authority or that it is self-proving.

I will begin with the central element of Christianity: the life, works, death and resurrection of Jesus. If one believes that Jesus (1)lived, (2)worked miracles, (3)claimed to be god in the flesh, (4)was killed and (5)rose from the dead, it only makes sense to believe in the Christian God.

Jesus lived. It seems fairly clear that a religious figure named Jesus lived in Palestine in the first century. Even the hardened skeptics of the Jesus Seminar seem to largely accept this to be fact. I will not dwell on this point.

The remaining propositions largely rest on the authenticty and accuracy of the NT. However, there is significant collaboration of items (1),(2)and (4) from Josephus and, arguably, the Babylonian Talmud.

So with respect to items (3) claiming to be God and (5) resurrection we must focus on the witness of the NT. Although the NT is a collection of works by numerous authors writing in different places and times it is certainly consistent on the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, its diversity makes it a much more compelling evidence for its claims. Within 20 years after the death of Jesus, the first books of the NT are written and confirm the fact that He was crucified and rose from the dead. This is certainly evidence of that fact. This is during a time that actual witnesses were alive and available to dispute the facts. Despite this, Christianity grew and flourished. Multiple witnesses attest (for example Peter, John, Matthew) to the fact that Christ rose from the dead. You may chose not to believe them but their written accounts are evidence of the fact in question.

Finally, did Christ claim to be God. Certainly, the NT reports that he did (John 8:58).

Obviously, this is meant to be an extremely brief summary just to get the debate rolling. Books have been written on this subject and I have no intention of writing one myself, especially not in this forum.

Also, I make no claim to new or innovative thinking on this subject. After almost 2,000 years of thought on the subject I doubt any of us will come up with anything really new. I don't rule out the possibility, I'd just be really surprised. However, I find the exercise useful and edifying.

Regards,

Finch

hezekiah jones

You don't say!

Philosoft

Atticus, I really think you should credit Lee Strobel. I am reading The Case for Faith and you have basically quoted him verbatim here. I must say, I'm about 3/4 through the book and up to now, his philosophy and logic (and that of the interviewees) has been utterly atrocious.

Malaclypse the Younger

Atticus_Finch

To be viewed as "fact", a datum must indeed be uncontradicted and beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, the text of a particular version and/or translation of the bible is a fact: It is uncontradicted that the text of Genesis 1:1 in the KJV is, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Considering only facts which support or are consistent with a proposition is a very weak standard of proof. For instance, the facts of perception "support" and are "consistent with" the proposition that the entire universe spontaneously assembled last Thursday. Is such a proposition thus "proven"?

A stronger standard of proof is resistance to falsification. If your proposition is false, what evidence would you expect to see? If the evidence that you do see contradicts your falsification criteria, then you can have more confidence in your proposition. It is, of course, important to consider all the evidence as well.

Good.

Obviously. But one has to ask a bigger question. If the christian god existed (with the corollary that belief, by some means, were ethically compelled), why would it bury its evidence two thousand years in the past? Why not make that that evidence obvious to everyone? If belief through faith were more important, then why leave evidence at all?

Certainly this dilemma (and all the others) can be rationalized, but the rationalizations are themselves suspect: It appears that you are constructing your rational thought around acceptance of the proposition, rather than accepting the proposition on the basis of rational thought.

But just this dilemma, that an omnipotent god would bury the evidence for its existence in ancient history is mind-bogglingly incredible.

The problem is that the actual evidence regarding ancient history is scant and little can be known with confidence. Even worse, to interpret these facts requires powerful assumptions of naturalism. To simply make sense of ancient history from the scant evidence at our disposal means that we have to import knowledge about the present, and assume it applies to the past. These assumptions might not be true, but if they are not, it is difficult to see how we can do anything about ancient history other than catalogue it and refuse to draw any inferences.

This point is not so obvious as you might assume. Which "Jesus" do you mean? A person corresponding to the character? Some guy named Jesus who might have started an oral tradition? Or did first- or second-century theologians go back, find a guy who more or less fit the mold, and coopt him?

And it is also possible that the character in the Gospels is entirely fictional.

Jesus's existence is not a fact, it is a rather weak conclusion at best, and the ambiguities of interpretation of this conclusion is not really helpful.

Which is, at best obviously compromised, if for no other reason than the obvious bias of the authors.

It is my understanding that the collaboration from Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud is suspect and weak, rather than "significant". But that is a matter of opinion, best discussed with better scholars than myself.

IIRC, they are not consistent on this point: Specifically, Mark does not appear to mention the resurrection.

And they are very inconsistent with regard to gross details. The rationalization of these inconsistencies seems to inspire more incredulity than the interpretaion of the gospels as historical fiction.

But, of course, if one have already decided, before rational examination of the gospels, to believe, it is would be unsurprising that one would then view the rationalizations with less incredulity than the hypothesis of fiction.

You are using what seems to me to be very optimistic dating. And the gospels do not "confirm" he rose from the dead, they claim he rose from the dead. They do not confirm each other, because it is obvious the synoptic gospels are derivative of Mark (thus not independent) and contain obvious embellishments (earthquakes, eclipses, etc.), which detract from their factual and historical credibility.

Of course, all of these inconsistencies can be rationalized away, but such rationalizations seem to requre prior belief in the proposition. One must construct the criteria of belief not skeptically or neutrally, but construct them knowing the evidence and the conclusion, and to construct them specifically to compel the conclusion in this case.

This is an example of an ad hoc rationalization. One must arbitrarily exclude alternative explanations without evidence: That the fact of the physical resurrection was not even claimed until later (no rebuttal is expected of a claim not yet made), the claim was obviously false and needed no detailed rebuttal, or that the claim was considered insignificant.

Well, they are evidence of something. However, the evidentiary value of an attestation is dependent on secondary criteria, including lack of bias, actual independence, naturalistic plausibility.

They are not evidence for the truth of the resurrection, because it is plausible to believe that, even if the resurrection did not occur, we might see these same attestations. Therefore, they do not differentiate between the truth or falsity of the resurrection.

So what? I am God. There, I just claimed to be god. Do you believe it? Does that claim have any evidentiary value whatsoever that I am, in truth, God?

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Slow down. Why not first spend a few moments elaborating on this "significant collaroration" with regards to item 2 -- hopefully without significant reliance upon the Testimonium Flavianum.

scarmig

Why I don't.

At a significant point in my life and mental development, I realized that I had a choice to make. I could live an inconsistent life where my point of view was founded on belief but my actions were necessarily executed via logic, or I could embrace logic as a consistent and reliable foundation, subject to the most limited interpretation and reinterpretation known to man, and thereby hold consistent my ethical foundations and engage in activities and decisions wholly consistent with them.

IOW, we all have to choose what our foundation is, what color is our looking glass. When I chose logic, I had to reject all views that did not pass logical mustard. Xtianity was the first to go.

GunnerJ

Not to mention The Case for Christ.

It's too bad you choose not to "dwell" on this based soley on a non-argument from non-authority. Especially when the case is not so cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. For you see, the silence of one historian speaks louder and more damning than the suspect noise of others; consider Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish scholar living in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus' supposed ministry. Never once does he mention Jesus, even when he had a good opportunity. He once, in one of his works, points out the difference between the name "Jesus" and "Hosea," explaining their meanings, and yet, he doesn't see it fit to mention a certain preacher with messianic pretensions in the city of Jerusalem going by the name of "Jesus" at just that time, even though it would be a wonderful anecdote.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

madmax2976

This is good. You happen to concur with another theist, luvluv, that atheism is reasonable.

<strong> I tend to lean towards what is most likely to be true, if I have enough evidence to make even that determination.

<strong> Then you'll have to actually argue why I should believe all of its claims.

<strong> Why? All these things could be true and the Christian God need not exist all. Jesus could have been an extra-terrestrial capable of unusual feats. He could have been the unwitting lackey of another God such as Odin or Zeus.

<strong> I'd put the probability pretty high myself. Around 80 percent I'd say.

<strong> I don't know what your refering to from the Talmud, but Josephus has two paragraphs, one of which is highly contested as to its authenticity, the other of which says nothing about Jesus himself at all. This is what you call "significant collaboration"?

<strong> First support that it is a "witness" of anything.

<strong> Why? Mark is widely held to be the first gospel and is devoid of the more flamboyant resurrection events that appear in Matthew and Luke. Seems to me its much more like legends surrounding Jesus growing over time.

<strong> Which books were those? Please specify and support your dating of them.

<strong> Nothing is a "fact" until you actually prove it is and you haven't even gotten close yet.

As for witnesses disputing these so-called facts, your being ethnocentric and anachronistic at the same time. Your retrojecting 20th century thinking into ancient Palestine and assuming people went about disproving and debunking religious claims. You assuming anyone cared about disputing religious claims or that the claims were anything to take notice of among a region where gods and miracle claims abounded, among Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, etc..

<strong> Check out the Barbarian Conversion by Richard Fletcher. Then you'll have a more accurate picture of how Christianity grew.

In any case, if you can provide some strong data on the "flourishing" of Christianity during its first couple hundred years you'll be doing good.

<strong> Check out, "Who Wrote the Gospels?", by Helms or "Who Wrote the New Testatment", by Mack. You'll see that your assertion that they were written by witnesses, is doubtful at best.

<strong> Certainly books have been written. But its also just as certain that they are not all favorable to your argument.

<strong> In that case my own analysis of the "old evidence" has led me to conclude that the evidence comes up woefully short in proving what is claimed. If you have nothing new, then there might not be much to talk about.

Theli

"evidence"... "fact"... Only now I see what you meant about your loosely use of these terms.
The evidence you speak of is NOT an evidence. It's a testimony. We have no way to comfirm that testimony to be true. Since the claim about resurrection itself is extraordinary I have alot of doubt in it.

Many people have claimed to be god. I can claim to be god aswell. But am I?


Malaclypse...
I have wondered this myself. Why should "faith" be important? We discussed faith earlier here, and I wonder what "faith in god" really mean.


1. Does it mean "belive that god exists"?
If it does then I wonder, what's the point in that? If the strongest arguments along with evidence would speak for gods existace, one would not need faith.
If this is the case then shouldn't the existance of faith be an argument against god's existance?

2. Does it mean "Trust god"?
I can't see any reason to trust god (if he existed). There is nothing I have witnessed in the world that speak for that good things happen to good people.
Diseases, natural disasters, viruses, humans and animals kills both "good" and "evil" people. Weither god can't do anything about this, doesn't wan't to, or just don't care is irrelavent.
If god exists he doesn't do a very good job at either convincing people of his existance nor builing up trust.

Excacly, Jesus might just have been a fictional character. An exageration of a real person that lived.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Goliath

Atticus_Finch,

Theorem: Given any two real numbers x and y, x=y.

Proof: If x=y, then by substitution x=x. Therefore x-x=x-x, whence 0=0. QED.

What is the problem with the proof?

Sincerely,

Goliath