Dear Christians: Is the Evidence for Your Beliefs Weak, Strong, or Very Strong?

Image result for image of the resurrection

 

Gary:  Is the empirical and/or historical evidence for the universal truth claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator, Lord of the universe, weak, strong, or very strong?

Christian:   It’s not the case that the evidence is weak, strong or very strong.  Rather, like a number of Christians, I subscribe to a cumulative conjunctive case for Christian theism.

Gary:  Good grief.  Your obfuscation answers my question!

 

 

 

End of post.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Dear Christians: Is the Evidence for Your Beliefs Weak, Strong, or Very Strong?

  1. Hahahahaha!!! It’s very much as if they do NOT want to be defined by any non-Faither, non-Believer who (in their subjective brain) are cognitively below them — because after all, they are no longer OF this depraved world, they are merely in it until a rapture.

    If you’ve played the game Whack-a-Mole Gary or tried to connect two positive-charged magnets flat on a table… it’s no different. LOL 😉 They play by no rules, not even the ambiguous ones in their own 4th-century CE Canonical New Testament — which ironically comical… is NOT a cumulative conjunctive case for any Christians on the planet. Not even close when the first SEED of the first root of their Greco-Roman “cumulative conjunctive” growths… are utterly historically wrong. Why? They were hijacked from Second Temple Judaism/Messianism (STJM)… and even all Jews then and now, can’t agree on exactly WHAT Second Temple Messianism really was. 😆

    And let ME be more cumulatively conjunctive here! 😉 STJM in 1st-century Syro-Palestine-Nabataea is NOT the same STJM Overseas in the 1st-century (or later!), or not Jerusalem, or i.e. the many Diaspora Jews! Hence, this “Christian” you quote has no clue whatsoever what they think they are conjunctively saying! Hahahaha! 😆

    Like

  2. re: “Is the empirical and/or historical evidence for the universal truth claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator, Lord of the universe, weak, strong, or very strong?”

    Ummm… that’s a theological position, Gary. And, frankly, it’s a poorly-worded version of one…

    But, a “universal truth claim”???

    No, it’s not that. It’s not that at all.

    “water is wet” might be a universal truth claim. “Man is mortal” is another. But whether the human person called “Jesus of Nazareth” was the creator of the universe, or whether he was the embodiment of the creator of the universe is strictly a theological/doctrinal position….

    Liked by 1 person

      1. so, just curious… Exactly what kind of “evidence” of a theological position would you expect?

        Lemme put it this way: If I say “Jennifer Lawrence is beautiful”, you might disagree, and that would be fine. But if you said “oh yeh? What’s your evidence for that?”, I’m just gonna think you’re an entirely irrational whack-job.

        You guys think you can throw out the word “evidence” like it’s supposed to stick most anywhere, but it just makes you look silly.

        Like

        1. More silly than claiming that it is an historical fact supported by evidence that ,the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and later levitated into outer space (heaven).
          As this is what you consider a worthy worldview, and stake your ‘eternal soul'(sic) upon, then I’ll take silly over Ginormous, idiotic delusional arse-hat that you are any day of the week.

          Just keep this crap away from kids and we are good to go.

          Like

          1. Ark –

            re: “More silly than claiming that it is an historical fact supported by evidence that ,the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and later levitated into outer space (heaven).”

            Here’s an idea: Go back through EVERY SINGLE POST I’ve ever made here on Gary’s blog, and find ONE INSTANCE in which I argue that Jesus “later levitated into outer space”. Just do it. Take your time. I’ve only been contributing here for maybe a little over a year or so. If there’s any such instances, you’ll find them.

            Show me where that has anything to do with my “worldview”. Show me where I’ve claimed that Luke’s description of that “ascension” is historically accurate.

            And, when you’ve investigated this matter, and (surprisingly) find yourself assured in that smallish mind you have that I have, in fact, never once claimed a thing about the ascension of Jesus as being “historical fact”, then you will understand why I consider most of what you have to say as being irrelevant.

            Like

            1. As you are a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian it was meant as a generic ‘you’ – Christians.
              However, now I am curious. Are you truly suggesting that this bible passage is in error;Luke 24), that is simply a plot device and you do not believe it?
              Please enlighten me on your position on this.
              Also, you surely believe that the character, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. do you not?
              Therefore, in what meaningful way does this diminish your penchant for accepting unsubstantiated nonsense?
              I mean really, how much more silly can one get?
              And again, keep garbage like this away from children and you can go believe in whatever crap you like.
              Aren’t you instructed to pray and wotnot indoors in your own home and not ponce about evangelizing and be like the Pharisees and other such hypocrites?

              Like

              1. re: “Are you truly suggesting that this bible passage is in error;Luke 24), that is simply a plot device and you do not believe it? Please enlighten me on your position on this.”

                Ark, my long-held position (which I feel certain that Gary would attest to) is that “I don’t do Gospels”.

                I do not regard the Gospels or Acts as writings of an historic nature (although, yes, they do contain some info that is itself historic).

                re: “Also, you surely believe that the character, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. do you not?”

                I do not “believe”, in some “religious” or “abstract” fashion, that Jesus was resurrected. Rather, I am convinced that he was resurrected in an actual, historical event. All the inferences that can be drawn from this historic fact are the things that we now commonly refer to as “doctrine”, and I do not necessarily make the same inferences as many/most fundamental/evangelical Christians make.

                Gary can certainly attest to this as well.

                SO – if Luke reports that Jesus ascended into a cloud, my response is “maybe, maybe not”. If he reports that Paul saw a “bright light” on the road to Damascus, my response is “maybe, maybe not”. This is because I – like most “secular” historians and scholars – do NOT regard Lukes writings (or any of the Gospels) as “historic” in nature.

                Therefore, when you go tossing out these rather generic “one size fits all” statements about (for example) Jesus’ ascension, I have no idea what the heck you’re talking about.

                Like

        2. ftbond:
          Exactly what kind of “evidence” of a theological position would you expect?

          The How of Evidence

          Let’s start with the how of evidence. In science (I know we’re not talking science here, but bear with me for a moment), the experiments, observations, equations, etc. that form the foundation of evidence are reliable and repeatable. Repeatable in that anyone, anywhere (with the proper equipment and conditions) can repeat the experiments, observations, calculations, etc. Reliable in that the same experiment, observation, or calculation performed by anyone will always end with the same result.

          Experiments in chemistry, or physics, or whatever will always produce the same results no matter the location, culture, religion, ethnicity, or economic class of the person(s) performing them. Always.

          Personal experiences are worthless unless you can show others how to reliably and repeatedly have the same experience as you’ve had. Paul’s personal experience with the risen Jesus is worthless unless and until anyone, anywhere, of any background can reliably and repeatedly reproduce it.

          The Who of Evidence

          Or, more accurately, who decides the how and what of evidence?

          Basically, it falls to the person making the claim to decide what evidence would be necessary to demonstrate its truthfulness and how to reliably and repeatedly produce that evidence. This is the burden of proof.

          Columbus thought the world was much smaller than the scientists had been predicting for a thousand years. It was up to him to demonstrate this fact. He failed to do so. He was wrong.

          Many of Einstein’s predictions could not be tested in his time. But for 100 years, as technology has improved, his predictions have repeatedly been proven correct.

          There is a group of astronomers that are predicting a very large, very distant planet (“9” or “X”) in our solar system. They are responsible for detailing what would and would not constitute evidence for this planet. The math says it’s there. But the search continues, because our understanding of gravity may need to be updated. Nothing in science is ever settled — only not disproven, yet.

          Theists are constantly asking atheists, “What evidence do you want of God (or other supernatural thingy).”

          This isn’t the atheists job. First, I don’t understand your god the way you do. Every time I spell out why I think god(s) don’t exist, some theist will pipe up, “That doesn’t describe my god.” I’ve only commented here a few times, but you’ve already pulled this on me.

          So. Not knowing your god, I can’t possibly come up with what evidence would prove her/him/it to me. That’s your job.

          The What of Evidence

          So we get to the what kind of evidence would we want. I have no idea. Again, that’s up to the theist. Mormons must prove the Mormon god. Muslims must prove the Islamic god. The whatever variant of Christians must prove their particular variant of the Christian god. etc.

          For example, Paul pretty much relied on the resurrection. He thought everything about his version of Christianity hung on the resurrection of Jesus. Sadly, he mistakenly thought that personal testimony was sufficient to prove it. So, he simply multiplied the number of people that had personal experiences with the resurrected Jesus.

          Five hundred people saw this Jesus? Okay. I’ll need their names, addresses, and sworn, notarized statements to that effect. Once these have been examined, we’ll need to cross-examine each independently.

          That would be a beginning to ‘believing’ that 500 people saw Jesus. Until we have that, Paul’s 500 are no more credible than the tens of thousands reported to have seen the resurrected Jesus in the ancient Americas (see The Book of Mormon).

          Hopefully, you can see why the personal testimonies in the Bible are worthless for getting to the truth — unless and until you can show how others can reliably and repeatedly produce the same experiences.

          Its Your Responsibility

          So, it’s up to you to come up with what kind of evidence would demonstrate your god.

          I’ll issue you a challenge I’ve issued to many theists. Methodological naturalism has given us the scientific method. Supporters of the supernatural (such as yourself), need to develop a methodological supernaturalism or supernatural method.

          Like the scientific method, it should provide reliable, repeatable results no matter the person using it. For example, anyone, anywhere in the world should be able to apply the supernatural method to The Book of Mormon and get the same result (true or false).

          We should be able to feed this method salvation by grace and get a consistent answer. The same for salvation by works or salvation through election. Every Christian and non-Christian in the world will get the same results reliably and repeatedly.

          There you go. Simple as that. Give a a method for testing your claims that is as reliable as testing claims about gravity.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m glad to hear that! If only more Christians understood that there is no evidence for the universal truth claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator, Ruler of the Cosmos, as so many of them claim.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. I once thought I had a cumulative conjunctive but my optician said it was merely a small piece of hardened egg yolk from breakfast stuck to my glasses. He gave me cloth and a withering look.

    ”I was blind but now I can see!” Isn’t this how it goes?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. It’s not that I have any strong evidence for my belief. Instead, I have dozens of arguments that are extremely weak and/or flawed. Taken together, all these extremely weak, very flawed arguments add up to absolute certainty in my belief.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Koseighty,

      What I have tried and tried and tried and tried Ad Infinitum Ad Nauseum for those outspoken Faithers of Christology is that 98.99% to 99.99% of their legitimate historical evidence for a Pauline-Christ, much less a Nasoraean Yeshua, is ALL dependent sources or heavily Greco-Roman sources post-Saul’s epistles! There is very, VERY little INDEPENDENT sources of this Hellenistic Christ they keep going on and on about! In fact, out of 41 contemporaneous authors/historians of Jesus’ time and 100-years after the execution… there is NOTHING!!! Nothing but Hellenistic Roman Catholic Apostolic/Patristic sources. Then when I explain how that’s a Kangaroo Court and Judges, their faces go blank! They don’t seem to grasp how infinitely suspicious (and unreliable) that makes their Canonical New Testament and later Patristic commentaries. 😩 Grrrrrrr, it is like they all took some pill of Intellectual Suicide 1,000 mg and just follow the crowd… over the cliff. 😉

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Ever notice how this blog, which Gary hopes is gonna transform the “brainwashed religious masses of Fundamentalists” into the Enlightened Ones that show up here with regularity, never really seems to draw any notice by most any of them?

    Instead, it becomes the “Beavis and Butthead Hour” with the same four guys all sitting around mumbling “yeh… right.. heheh.. oh, yeh.. hehehe…”, having some kind of “inside joke” going on, while the rest of the world flits right on by, never noticing, and most certainly not caring…

    But, the funny thing about it is that not a single one of you Enlightened Ones have any explanation at all for something as basic as the creation of the universe. “Oh, it was done by natural process”, you say, and yet, there is not one single shred of evidence – not one tiny bit of data – from before the Big Bang.

    So, the REAL truth is you guys don’t know squat, any more than anybody else does. For all you know, you guys might be the totally deluded ones.

    Just thought I’d mention that. Sometimes it’s good to sort of “take stock”, and back up and admit “really, what the hell do I know?”, then go have a beer.

    Like

    1. I will take a bet that his blog draws more attention yours, ft.

      Instead, it becomes the “Beavis and Butthead Hour” with the same four guys

      Five ”guys” actually. You forget the Obnoxious Arsewipe …. you

      .

      So, the REAL truth is you guys don’t know squat, any more than anybody else does

      Aside from the fact the answer is 42 , then , yes, we don’t know.
      However, unlike a bloviating, vacuous windbag like some people we know at least we have the humility to acknowledge that we don’t know and certainly don’t go around claiming that some 2000 year old narrative construct called Jesus of Nazareth is the key to eternal life and happiness all the live long day … tr la farking la.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: