Jump to content

Christian Evidence


Recommended Posts

Hello. Here I want to hear all the evidence that the Christians have. If you have evidence, please do this.

 

Evidence:

some evidence

some evidence

some evidence

 

Note that "Evidence" is size 4, and "some evidence" is size 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Um, yes, there are lots of problems. God could of created the world. You cannot argue with that. So far, I'm still saying "Where did the lithium-7 go", so I can argue with the big bang.   Would you

How about you read this: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm and this: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0505.htm   Did you ever consider you might want to learn the original language prop

~ Bertrand Russell     ~ Richard Dawkins     More here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

Posted Images

Note that "Evidence" is size 4, and "some evidence" is size 3.

I used to do this in elementary school when the teacher made us write a five-page report and I didn't have much to say. Bigger writing takes up more room and makes it look like you have more than you actually do.

 

 

In this case, you may want to try size 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people keep screaming "EVIDENCE", when no logical Christian ever claims there is in fact evidence to support Christianity other than some historical accuracies. Any logical Christian will tell you that they aren't Christians based on evidence but faith. The only evidence anyone is likely to stumble upon are some accuracies dealing with people, places, and events of the times. These are mixed in with the stories of the bible with other things that can never be proven. It is peoples faith that lead their religion, not any based evidence found through scrutiny of that faith. So I agree with the confusion of the rest of this thread. What is the point in asking for evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people keep screaming "EVIDENCE", when no logical Christian ever claims there is in fact evidence to support Christianity other than some historical accuracies. Any logical Christian will tell you that they aren't Christians based on evidence but faith. The only evidence anyone is likely to stumble upon are some accuracies dealing with people, places, and events of the times. These are mixed in with the stories of the bible with other things that can never be proven. It is peoples faith that lead their religion, not any based evidence found through scrutiny of that faith. So I agree with the confusion of the rest of this thread. What is the point in asking for evidence?

People HERE keep screaming "EVIDENCE!" at njaohnt because a) he states matters of faith as matters of fact, and b) this is a science forum where assertions like that need to be backed up with evidence. Some people have a hard time understanding this difference, and it's made more difficult when they also refuse to read what others have shown as evidence to support their arguments. When someone makes 78 posts and just keeps repeating the same things over and over, it's pretty easy to tell they aren't picking up any details from the discussions. These are usually the people who call US close-minded while they just continue to preach things that have been shown to be opinion and belief rather than a thesis with supportive evidence.

 

I agree with you here, JustinW. I respect a person's right to believe what they want when it comes to faith and opinion. When faith is held up as fact though, we can easily show that it's not. Keep your faith, be a better person for it, your religion probably wants it that way, but don't expect science to lend it any legitimacy by accepting shaky "evidence".

Link to post
Share on other sites
People HERE keep screaming "EVIDENCE!" at njaohnt because a) he states matters of faith as matters of fact, and b) this is a science forum where assertions like that need to be backed up with evidence. Some people have a hard time understanding this difference, and it's made more difficult when they also refuse to read what others have shown as evidence to support their arguments. When someone makes 78 posts and just keeps repeating the same things over and over, it's pretty easy to tell they aren't picking up any details from the discussions. These are usually the people who call US close-minded while they just continue to preach things that have been shown to be opinion and belief rather than a thesis with supportive evidence.

 

I agree with you here, JustinW. I respect a person's right to believe what they want when it comes to faith and opinion. When faith is held up as fact though, we can easily show that it's not. Keep your faith, be a better person for it, your religion probably wants it that way, but don't expect science to lend it any legitimacy by accepting shaky "evidence".

 

 

Agreed :)

 

I guess that a large number of Christians would consider the fact that the Vatican accepts evolution as being evidence to support it, but that's not really a valid reason. It's an appeal to authority.

Actually most Christians I've ever met don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks. Catholics may see it differently though. But as for evidence, I was raised a Baptist most of my life but will be one of the first to tell anyone that if it's evidence they're looking for they might want to try a museum or labrotory instead of a church.

 

 

 

edit: I just ran into the thread where njoahnt is posting. I see your point even clearer now Phi.

Edited by JustinW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually most Christians I've ever met don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks. Catholics may see it differently though. But as for evidence, I was raised a Baptist most of my life but will be one of the first to tell anyone that if it's evidence they're looking for they might want to try a museum or labrotory instead of a church.

 

I was raised Catholic and most Catholics I know also don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually most Christians I've ever met don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks. Catholics may see it differently though.

Many of the Baptists I know don't think of Catholics as Christians at all. Neither are the Mormons, according to them. I think it makes it easier to qualify your own faith as real if someone else's isn't.

 

I was raised Catholic and most Catholics I know also don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks.

Seriously? That's really funny. And not what most would expect.

 

 

 

I'm reminded of the episode of Cheers where Woody and his fiance Kelly find out that she's Lutheran Church of America and he's Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. He's convinced their children would be half-breed monsters and he wants to call off the wedding because of her heresy. I've heard members of my own extended family comment about other Christians, saying that it's so tragic that they believe in Jesus but may not get salvation because their belief isn't quite right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? That's really funny. And not what most would expect.

Quite serious. Twelve years of Catholic school for me, eight for my wife, twelve for my kids, two nuns and two priest in my extended family. My wife is one of eleven kids due to her mother's strict Catholic stance. In other words, I've had heavy exposure to Catholics as friends, family, parents of the friends of my kids, in schools, in social settings, etc. A generally middle class group of people, more or less centered around Missouri, USA.

 

Based on that exposure, I would guess that fewer than 5% of the Catholics I have known base their beliefs or actions on what the Vatican has to say. They seem generally to have been influenced by their Catholic upbringing (as have I) but as a whole I'd say they think for themselves. A small example is that I have about five openly gay extended family members, who along with their partners are treated exactly as any other family members are. Two of them are sons of my extremely Catholic mother-in-law.

 

My exposure to Catholics is one of the reasons I often find myself defending religion in various threads, even though I am an atheist. Many people here joyfully rip into religion, and my exposure to it (which I realize may not be representative) has been almost all positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of what?

 

Look at the title. "Christian Evidence" usually means evidence of God, and the Bible.

 

I used to do this in elementary school when the teacher made us write a five-page report and I didn't have much to say. Bigger writing takes up more room and makes it look like you have more than you actually do.

 

 

In this case, you may want to try size 7.

 

Maybe you want to use Size 7 for evidence against Christianity.

 

the point of this thread is to let njaohnt roll out more of his horse feathers, I for one am tired of him just repeating religious assertions that have no support over and over again...

 

No, that is wrong. The purpose is so that I can show people that God is real (or, if you wish to, to show me that He isn't, which that is horse feathers).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the title. "Christian Evidence" usually means evidence of God, and the Bible.

 

I figured that out, i genuinely look forward to seeing that evidence...

 

No, that is wrong. The purpose is so that I can show people that God is real (or, if you wish to, to show me that He isn't, which that is horse feathers).

 

 

You do understand that your's is a positive assertion, i have never said i can prove god is not real, but in the lack of positive evidence for god the default position is "there are no gods" To actually prove there is no god would require god like powers of knowing everything there is to know. I do not contend that god is impossible or that i can show there is no god, i simply do not see any positive evidence of the existence of god or gods... I do remain open to the possibility of gods but i see no evidence of them and not being able to explain something about the natural world is not positive evidence for god or gods...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is wrong. The purpose is so that I can show people that God is real (or, if you wish to, to show me that He isn't, which that is horse feathers).

If you can't provide this evidence on your own, and need others to provide it for you, why do we need YOU?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

 

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

 

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

~ Bertrand Russell

 

 

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

~ Richard Dawkins

 

 

More here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the title. "Christian Evidence" usually means evidence of God, and the Bible....

That's kind of funny actually. The whole bible is 'he said he said', nothing but hearsay. It would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law and yet the religious want it treated as fact. Little do they realize that quite often faith is technically a mental disorder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the title. "Christian Evidence" usually means evidence of God, and the Bible.

 

It is not a term I am familiar with, but I did assume that is what you meant. But as a science forum it usually pays to be precise as possible.

Edited by ajb
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence for Christianity but not everyone would see it as such. This is because, as has been pointed out, there are many interpretations of the teachings. There is no evidence for most of these interpretations. Logically one would expect there to be evidence for only one of them at most.

 

If it is interpreted as Gnosticism, and in line with Thomas, St, Anthony, Plotinus, Eckhart, the psudo-Dionysius etc., then there is evidence. The evidence is mostly logical, philosophical or metaphysical, but I think there is some in physics as well.

 

But it cannot be simply stated since one would have to begin by agreeing what we mean by 'Christianity'. If it's what the Vatican says it is then no, there is no evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is interpreted as Gnosticism, and in line with Thomas, St, Anthony, Plotinus, Eckhart, the psudo-Dionysius etc., then there is evidence. The evidence is mostly logical, philosophical or metaphysical, but I think there is some in physics as well.

 

Evidence of god in logic? Please clarify this.

 

Evidence in philosophy? Please clarify this as well.

 

Metaphysics has no evidence of it's own how can it be evidence of something else?

 

Evidence of god in physics? Please clarify this as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of god in logic? Please clarify this.

 

Evidence in philosophy? Please clarify this as well.

 

Metaphysics has no evidence of it's own how can it be evidence of something else?

 

Evidence of god in physics? Please clarify this as well.

We have not defined God, so it would all depend. I'm not suggeting that there is evidence for any kind of God the Church usually talks about. But there is evidence that Christian doctrine is true when it is interpreted as Plotinus does, as being consistent with, or as being a major implementation of, the perennial philosophy. For this view check out 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (they argue the Jesus is a mythological and not historical figure), or relevant work by Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels.

 

In metaphysics the most obvious evidence would be the undecidability of metaphysical problems. In physics, well, I daren't go there. Perhaps nonlocality would be evidence. I've long thought that this is the phenomenon that brings physics most closely into contact with religion.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have not defined God, so it would all depend. I'm not suggeting that there is evidence for any kind of God the Church usually talks about. But there is evidence that Christian doctrine is true when it is interpreted as Plotinus does, as being consistent with, or as being a major implementation of, the perennial philosophy. For this view check out 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (they argue the Jesus is a mythological and not historical figure), or relevant work by Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with "we have not defined God" and when you say "interpreted as Pontius does". Doesn't that highlight the highly subjective nature of it all? That's why I can confidently say I am a hard atheist and still claim to have given the "god hypothesis" a fair chance. If you give the existence of god a hard unbiased, objective analysis of any kind, be it experimental, logic, or whatever; it will fail consistently.

 

There is absolutely no reason to even begin to even speculate about whether or not a god exists because no one can even agree on the properties said god would have. once the door is opened to serious speculation about the existence of other things that have no empirical evidence the operational philosophy of objective science is out the window. It becomes logical for effort and time to be spent on exploring the existence of any highly speculative object. If god why not vampires? Seriously. They have about the same level of empirical, objective evidence for their existence, i.e. some highly superstitious old world people wrote about them!

 

I honestly don't understand peoples' intellectual attachment to the existence of a god. Even though I used to be a Christian myself. It is certainly a powerful notion once it has been swallowed. I think people have a tendency to compartmentalize their thoughts between different subjects. This is unnecessary. It is my opinion that if one applies the way he thinks about unicorns or vampires to god he will certainly find the idea of the existence of a sentient god of any type to be unlikely or ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have not defined God, so it would all depend. I'm not suggeting that there is evidence for any kind of God the Church usually talks about. But there is evidence that Christian doctrine is true when it is interpreted as Plotinus does, as being consistent with, or as being a major implementation of, the perennial philosophy. For this view check out 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (they argue the Jesus is a mythological and not historical figure), or relevant work by Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels.

 

I'm not requesting evidence for any particular god, I would accept evidence for any god, there is none, all you have is claims by other people who claim to have had personal experiences or claims of some sort of interpretation of some one's thoughts on the matter. In other words there is no empirical, testable evidence of anything supernatural, gods, demons, spirits, or anything else.

 

 

In metaphysics the most obvious evidence would be the undecidability of metaphysical problems.

 

So not being able to decide a solution is proof of gods? Get real, metaphysics is no more than what some people claim to be true, no testable evidence what so ever.

 

In physics, well, I daren't go there. Perhaps nonlocality would be evidence. I've long thought that this is the phenomenon that brings physics most closely into contact with religion.

 

 

I think i would steer clear of physics as proof of god as well, non locality has nothing to do with religion... Believe what you want, i will not fault you as long as you are clear that it is belief and as long as you don't affect others with your belief but a positive assertion demands positive evidence and there is none...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.