Which god is God?

[SallyF]

Many, many cultures have imagined God in many, many ways. Certain cultures declare everyone else's idea of God to be false.

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

[Don McIntosh]

Regarding “Watch a courtroom documentary sometime�: It might be prudent to avoid basing one’s decisions and positions on watching television shows.

Oh, I agree completely. Did the mere fact that I mentioned courtroom documentaries, as a means to observe how the concept of "burden of proof" actually works, somehow lead you to think that I was "basing my decisions and positions on watching television shows"?

Large portions confirmed? Creation? Garden of Eden? Adam and Eve? Noah’s flood? Johanna and the fish? Virgin birth? Talking donkeys and snakes? Divinity of Jesus? Miracles?

That a few mentioned people, places and events is NOT indication that a work is non-fiction. Mention of Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Savannah, and Civil War battles does NOT indicate that ‘Gone with the wind’ was a true story.

Many fiction writers include mention of real people, places, and events in their fictional stories.

That's true. But historically accurate writings always include mention of real people, places and events; whereas fiction writings usually include mention of people, places and events known to be fictional, and often openly acknowledged to be fictional by the authors themselves. At the same time some fiction includes no mention of real people, places and events whatsoever. So maybe it's best to say that inclusion of real people, places and events is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a work of non-fiction.

The biblical narrative consistently mentions real people, places, and events. Moreover, when critics that assert some story in the biblical narrative is fiction, as often as not some archaeologist or historian comes along and makes a discovery that proves the critics wrong. That situation makes for good prima facie grounds for thinking the Bible is probably not fiction.

I see a ‘sharp line’ between the Bible and much well-documented ancient Near Eastern history – claims of supernatural characters and events.

Have any supernatural / miracle events of the Bible been historically confirmed?

Many people, and I agree with them, would argue that the resurrection of Jesus has essentially been historically confirmed as an inference to the best explanation (of certain basic facts of history). And I have argued in some detail why our knowledge of the law of biogenesis confirms that the origin of life on earth was a miracle, here:
viewtopic.php?p=965407#965407

Again, none of that means that biblical events are strictly verified; but that's only because historical events cannot be verified generally – not even the most commonplace, mundane events of history.

If very rapid, remarkable rise of Christianity is evidence of the reliability of the NT, then the very rapid, remarkable rise of Latter Day Saints is evidence of the reliability of the Book of Mormon. And, the rapid rise of Islam is evidence of the reliability of the Koran.

Agreed?

No. The historical circumstances facing the early Christians made the rise of Christianity extremely improbable, and therefore much more remarkable than the rise of Mormonism or Islam. That's precisely why I mentioned the rise of the church in Jerusalem, "the very place where Christ was publicly crucified," and where Stephen was later stoned to death and other Christians were imprisoned.

That particular circumstance implies a couple of things: (1) Professing faith in Jesus, let alone preaching that he had risen from the dead and appeared to his followers, was hazardous business; and (2) If Jesus had not risen, his body was either still in its tomb or somewhere in the vicinity, and therefore the resurrection was falsifiable. Together those two factors suggest that Christianity would never have gotten off the ground apart from the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Is there verifiable evidence to support the tale of Paul/Saul’s conversion from anti- to pro-Christian? Or, is the ‘evidence’ restricted to Bible tales?

Placing "evidence" in scare quotes doesn't render it void, nor does referring to a set of writings that scholars almost universally recognize for their historical value as mere "Bible tales." Paul's conversion cannot be extricated from the history of the early church, nor can that history be extricated from the history of the church in the Middle Ages, and so on, without leaving huge gaping explanatory holes. Trying to fully explain the origins of Christianity without Paul's conversion would be like trying to fully explain the origins of the American republic without Washington's generalship.

In reasoned discussion and debate, burden of proof is upon those making the claim.

“The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.� https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Those who make unverifiable claims often attempt to ‘shift the burden of proof’ by demanding that others prove them wrong. Doing so is a disreputable debate tactic. Anyone can tell a big lie and demand that it be accepted unless it can be proved false – to a gullible and naive audience.

Right, but the problem there is that claims are generally being made on all sides in a debate. You just made a claim, for instance. I disagree with it. Now according to you, that means you bear the burden of proving it.

And please try to balance your rhetoric with reason. Rhetorical means of persuasion are fine, but not in the complete absence of logic or some form of argumentation. Here you suggest, without anything like an argument to back it up, that Christians like me are repeatedly "demanding" things and telling a "big lie," and that anyone who believes us is "gullible and naïve."

Kindly present evidence to CONFIRM that ‘resurrection’ is the ‘best explanation of the relevant historical facts’ – and identify the ‘historical FACTS’ to which this refers.

Kindly review the evidence already presented. Kindly present a better explanation of the historical facts already presented.

There are unverified TALES of an empty tomb, unverified TALES of angels announcing the departure of the corpus, unverified TALES of people seeing the deceased ‘alive and well’.

An empty tomb does NOT indicate that the deceased came back to life and left. Adding ‘angels’ does not increase credibility. Claims of seeing a deceased are common (and are generally not accepted as verbatim truth).

Again, placing words in CAPS and "scare quotes," or pointing out that a substantial set of historical data is unverified (when all of history is unverified) or that the NT is just so many factually empty Bible TALES, does not have the power to nullify what is widely regarded as a strong and rational case for the resurrection of Christ based on facts of history.

At least make some kind of argument of your own. Say that the prior probability of the resurrection is too low to warrant an investigation, if you like. Say that historiography is a waste of time generally, because you are a positivist who believes that only logically deducible or empirically verifiable facts should be considered true. Say that the Gospel writers, the disciples of Jesus, and Paul the apostle were all liars and charlatans. By arguing thus you could properly take into account the relevant facts and still be able to maintain your obviously strongly held belief that Christianity is false.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 141 by Don McIntosh]

The biblical narrative consistently mentions real people, places, and events. Moreover, when critics that assert some story in the biblical narrative is fiction, as often as not some archaeologist or historian comes along and makes a discovery that proves the critics wrong. That situation makes for good prima facie grounds for thinking the Bible is probably not fiction.

Historical fiction is often set amongst genuine historical events and persons.


It's nonetheless still fiction, and the authors can fill the historical setting with all manner of gods and angels and virgin-born god-men. And for some folks, the genuine historical setting is enough to give them faith that the gods and angels and virgin-born god-men are also real.

Be that as it may, you seem to have forgotten to tell us how we may determine which lowercase (and thereby mythological) god is the uppercase (and thereby genuine) God …?

Is your god, God …?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 141 by Don McIntosh]

Did the mere fact that I mentioned courtroom documentaries, as a means to observe how the concept of "burden of proof" actually works, somehow lead you to think that I was "basing my decisions and positions on watching television shows"?

...yes. It was right up there with someone saying they know how to do the Heimlich manuever because they're an avid fan of Grey's Anatomy.

Documentaries don't say everything pertinent. There's edits, things get cut, they have to consider audience retention.

That's true. But historically accurate writings always include mention of real people, places and events; whereas fiction writings usually include mention of people, places and events known to be fictional,

Such as giant fish, and mythological global floods? And talking snakes? How would a snake talk anyway, they don't have ears?
In fact, wouldn't the snake talking in J K Rowling's Harry Potter series be a dead giveaway that her series is fiction, if nothing else?

and often openly acknowledged to be fictional by the authors themselves.

Fortunately, people like myself don't need the open acknowledgements. We can figure it out for ourselves.

So maybe it's best to say that inclusion of real people, places and events is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a work of non-fiction.

No, not necessarily. It is possible to write a piece about real people, places or events without ever once naming them. e.g.
The man's sister was playing outside, fell off a wall, and fractured her skull. She then spent several days in hospital, before returning home with her mother.

The biblical narrative consistently mentions real people, places, and events.

That isn't enough to elevate it to the status of non-fiction.

Moreover, when critics that assert some story in the biblical narrative is fiction, as often as not some archaeologist or historian comes along and makes a discovery that proves the critics wrong.

Each and every time I've heard about "discoveries" like this, literally every time, it's a hoax. I am not kidding. Or they conveniently can't show off their discovery because reasons.

Many people, and I agree with them, would argue that the resurrection of Jesus has essentially been historically confirmed as an inference to the best explanation (of certain basic facts of history).

Whereas I and other people disagree. So what now?

And I have argued in some detail why our knowledge of the law of biogenesis confirms that the origin of life on earth was a miracle

In all my years of study, I've never once found where inserting "miracle" into the equations (or equivalent) was an acceptable practice.

Again, none of that means that biblical events are strictly verified;

The first thing you've said in this thread that I agree with, although personally speaking, I would remove the strictly.

but that's only because historical events cannot be verified generally – not even the most commonplace, mundane events of history.

But somehow, you can confirm the resurrection of Jesus. Somehow you can say the origin of life is a miracle.

No. The historical circumstances facing the early Christians made the rise of Christianity extremely improbable, and therefore much more remarkable than the rise of Mormonism or Islam.

I disagree. Mormonism and Islam faced greater challenges, harsher reprisals, than did early Christianity. Heck, Muhammed waged wars, how's that for a challenge?

That's precisely why I mentioned the rise of the church in Jerusalem, "the very place where Christ was publicly crucified," and where Stephen was later stoned to death and other Christians were imprisoned.

Muhammed died in Medina. That city is still Muslim.

That particular circumstance implies a couple of things: (1) Professing faith in Jesus, let alone preaching that he had risen from the dead and appeared to his followers, was hazardous business;

As has been the case with [Insert religion here]. Rarely does a new religion start without coming into some form of conflict with the current establishment.

and (2) If Jesus had not risen, his body was either still in its tomb or somewhere in the vicinity, and therefore the resurrection was falsifiable.

Which wouldn't have mattered to his followers anyway. They more than likely if presented with a body by the authorities would have said one of two things
1) That's not Jesus's body
2) Jesus took on new flesh with his resurrection

Please do not pretend that religions are easily stopped. Humans have a nasty habit of rationalizing pretty much anything away.

Together those two factors suggest that Christianity would never have gotten off the ground apart from the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

No-one else could perform Joseph Smith's magical trick of reading seeing stones, yet that never stopped Mormonism from having millions of members.

Paul's conversion cannot be extricated from the history of the early church, nor can that history be extricated from the history of the church in the Middle Ages, and so on, without leaving huge gaping explanatory holes.

Paul is the only source for Paul's supposed hostility to Christianity. Even his opponents within Christianity, such as Peter, never mention Paul as having once gone around arresting them. Kind of an odd thing to leave out, don't you think?

Trying to fully explain the origins of Christianity without Paul's conversion would be like trying to fully explain the origins of the American republic without Washington's generalship.

Imagine if the only source for George Washington having been a general who commanded Independence forces during the war...was Washington himself. Imagine if no-one else from the time period, either on his side or the British, mentioned this rather pertinent piece of information. Imagine if the earliest writings we have on this situation are from Washington himself, twenty or thirty years after the war, talking about how he once served the British but then changed sides. The silence from people like Alexander Hamilton or Ben Franklin would be deafening in this situation: who is this guy, why was he elected the first president?