WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3272
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #1

Post by POI »

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3272
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #351

Post by POI »

Before I begin, allow me to again provide the following...

Looks as though the only type of 'evidence' to substantiate a one-time witnessed 'extraordinary event', would be first-hand corroborated and deposed eyewitness accounts. The rest, looks to be irrelevant.

Further, by "deposed", I mean the "eyewitness" claims were challenged thoroughly. And when I say challenged, I do not mean punished/persecuted/martyred. I mean they were cross examined, to rule out self-deception/other/other.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm It is not in any way "hand waving" to take your question on directly, by demonstrating we would still be here debating this same issue if this experience of Paul would have never been recorded.
Um, yes it would. If Paul never existed, half the "NT" would be missing. And in Paul's letters, is where the '500' are mentioned, (for example). Without Paul's letters, you have less claims to consider --- in any capacity.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm In other words, the claims of the resurrection in no way depends on this experience, and if we take away this experience, we are still stuck with the overwhelming evidence of the claims being made, and this is what you are avoiding having to deal with.
Without Paul's testimony, you have a small handful of "anonymous" claims. Hence, you have no real starting point; like you do with Paul and Joseph Smith.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm This takes us all the way back to the beginning of this discussion, where you attempt to pin one down to some sort of main reason.
The 'main reason' you believe, as I stated way-back-when, is due to the ('passion and punishment of Paul & co.'). In other words, a few wrote some 'earnest' letters, and these letter writers were later 'persecuted'. And thus far, I have been conceding point after point, without much contest, to see if such argumentation would substantiate a one-time claimed 'extraordinary event.' Thus far, I see little more than 'faith', to make such a conclusion.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm It is clear you attempt to do this because you either cannot deal with all the evidence involved, or you are attempting to avoid having to do such a thing
Or. as I stated repeatedly, the only 'evidence' which would substantiate a one-time extraordinary claim would be first-hand corroborated and deposed eyewitness accounts.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm
In fact, it's rather a crushing blow to your case.
This is rather comical, since if we were to eliminate this experience completely, we would still be left with facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims. In fact, even if we were to be able to demonstrate, Paul was somehow deceived into believing he had such an experience, but really did not, we would still be left with the many other facts, and evidence, which would give us reasons to believe the claims.
Again, the only 'evidence' which would substantiate a one-time extraordinary claim would be first-hand corroborated and deposed eyewitness accounts.. And thus far, if you eliminate Paul, you have even less to place your faith upon.

(U) You know like, when you were able to successfully pin another member down to one main reason, which would have been what he claims to experience, and you were able to demonstrate his experience does not demonstrate anything concerning the Christian claims, but you are still left with having to deal with the actual facts, and evidence we have, which you are attempting to avoid, by attempting to pin the whole thing down to one main reason?

(ME) My objective, in this thread, is to inquire why one believes. He now realizes his reason is based upon faulty logic. His methodology is based upon credulity alone. Thus far, your methodology looks to be faith based. And, yet again, the only 'evidence' which would substantiate a one-time extraordinary claim would be first-hand corroborated and deposed eyewitness accounts.

(U) Actually, it has to do with the fact, if this event was never recorded, we would still be left with overwhelming evidence the claims were being made long before Paul came on the scene.

(ME) Again, if Paul never existed, less claims would be present to investigate. And getting back to my prior point, you are aware Paul's experience was not corroborated. Hence, you know you cannot use Paul's 'experience' as any way or means to further 'substantiate' a 'postmortem interaction'. And when we get to the Gospels, we do not even know who wrote them, when, and where they obtained their source information (i.e.):

- being direct eyewitness(es)
- taken from circulating oral tradition
- the later believing church told literate scribes what to write
- etc etc etc........

(U) First, we have very good evidence the authors of the Gospels were indeed first-hand eyewitnesses, or close associates, and you continue to avoid dealing with this evidence.

(ME) No, we do not. Simply continuing to make such assertion(s) does not then validate such assertion(s).

(U) we can know these folks were making the claims to have been eyewitnesses of the events, and we do not even have to depend on the Gospel accounts to know this to be a fact. We can know they were making these claims in the face of those who would have been very much opposed, and we can know they were suffering for making these claims, and we can know we have very good evidence that many of them continued to proclaim to have witness the event well into their old age, even being put to death because they were claiming this.

(ME) Here we go again with the second part of your 'main reason', which is 'punishment'. As I've stated prior, blasphemy was still a capital offense, due to the high level of superstition during these times. Yes, that's right. If you did not believe in a certain way, and were told upon, or discovered, you could be killed for it. This still happens today, on certain places of the globe. Well, EVEN IF everything you state above is true, people die for incorrect beliefs all the time, So? Further, HOW in the heck do you know whether or not any of these individuals recanted their 'beliefs' the second they were caught, and still killed any ways? It's not like the people 'persecuting' them were just simply going to release them, if they merely recanted.?.?.?

(U) My friend, these authors are challenged daily by you, and the scholars you put your trust in,[/quote]

(ME) Um, you cannot challenge a dead 'eyewitness.'

(U) I mean, there are scholars such as Ehrman who make bold claims like...

(ME) For someone who does not like to reference scholars, you sure mention this scholar a lot.

(U) "the authors were not eyewitnesses" but he has not in any way demonstrated this to be the case. However, this same scholar can go on to admit, "all the other (alternative) explanations are not very probable". How you have deceived yourself into thinking these authors have not been challenged in any way is beyond my imagination, when these authors may be the most challenged in history. And yet, the facts, evidence, and reasons remain.

(ME) I again ask you, point/blank, 5th time and counting... Is Bart A) a liar, or B) stupid?

(U) It is not, "IF this were true". Rather, it is something we can know beyond a reasonable doubt, base upon the facts, and evidence. Next, this demonstrates Paul would not have to depend upon the experience you are so hung up on, since he would have been able to actually here the claims the eyewitnesses were making from their own lips. Now, you can question, and make all the assumptions you wish, but these are the facts we are dealing with.

(ME) If you can dismiss Paul's experience, then why can you not just as easily dismiss these other's experiences?

I keep repeating this to you, but you do not seem to have processed this observation (yet)? As I told you, more than once, you could be in large room full of people, who all report the same 'extraordinary' claim, and dismiss them all. Your argument is that a large group of people all conversed seeing and/or experiencing the same thing. But since each one was not 'deposed' or challenged, we do not know what they saw or heard. And by "challenged", I do not mean they were not 'persecuted'. I mean they were not cross examined to rule out self-deception/other/other. All we have is the writings of Paul, and a small handful of other "anonymous" writings; for which we do not know the author(s) and their motivations (i.e.) direct eyewitnesses themselves, or heard from oral tradition, or literate scribes being told what to write by later believers, the church, etc etc etc.... You cannot rule any of them out, because we cannot truly identify the authors. To say you can, seems to instead be operating upon 'faith'. Which-is-to-mean, hope...

I'll tackle the rest later..........
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3272
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #352

Post by POI »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm What you are failing to realize here is the fact that, Paul, and the author to Theophilus, would not have to depend upon the written Gospels.
You already all but dismissed Paul's 'experience', as not even being necessary. So what then makes this <other claimed experience> so much more special? And to boot, this (author to Theophilus) claim was also not corroborated and/or deposed/questioned/examined/challenged/other in any way to substantiate such said event. Couple this with the lack in knowledge to who the author was for Luke and Acts, and you have a recipe for faith/hope to have a 'high degree of confidence' that these claim(s) are true.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm
Again, even if this were the case, so what? Was Paul there to corroborate this other writer's direct experience(s)? The answer is no. Was anyone there to depose this person's said 'experience'? Again, the answer is no. So again, it is no different than (you or I) reading about it, or hearing about it. And like I've told you, time and time again, it is quite easy to dismiss "extraordinary" claims when they are not substantiated in any kind of way.
What you are failing to realize here is the fact that, we are not simply dealing with Paul, and the author to Theophilus.
What you are failing to realize is that it becomes just as easy to dismiss (the author's claim to Theophilus), as you have indicated it can be dismissed for Paul of Tarsus. Neither was corroborated and/or deposed. Hence, that which can be asserted without evidence can just as easily be discarded without evidence. So what else do you got?
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm Rather, what we have contained in the NT, is 5 different sources who report upon the same exact historical event.
All we have is anonymous writings about events. We do not know if these events were taken from direct eyewitness accounts, from oral tradition, scribes being told what to write by the church, other other other?
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm This is unlike any other religion I know of.
Being unique, for you, does not render the claims(s) any more valid. They must instead be substantiated. And it would appear they have not. Why? Again, none have been corroborated and/or deposed.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm In other words, I am not aware of any other religion which is based upon letters authored by different sources, addressed to different audiences at the time, who would have already believed, with the authors having no idea, or any concern that anyone else would read these letters other than the intended audience at the time, who could not have known about any sort of Holy Book, these letters would later be contained in.
I believe this brings us back to a prior question you asked... Who started this religion? Meaning, who was responsible for collecting, editing, and omitting what was and was not to be contained within the "NT"?
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm We know, that when we have more than one witness to events which may not be true, the witnesses many times begin to change their witness. You know, kinda like Mormonism you continue to want to bring up?
You have demonstrated my point. Since we know who the author was for Mormonism, we can question the author further. Thank you!

You cannot do this for the Gospel writers.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm Because you see, when Smith began to add witnesses, some of these witnesses began to change their witness, with some being excommunicated from the Church, with others leaving on their own. However, not only do we not hear of any of the 12 changing their witness, we have very good evidence, they continued to proclaim these things well into their old age, with some of them being put to death because of their witness. These are just some of the facts you are failing to deal with. Now, these facts may not be convincing to you, but this would not demonstrate there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims.
Since we have a better grasp of these proclaimed witnesses, we may more-so know what actually happened. As I told you, many moons ago, due to the constraints of early antiquity, we are certainly lacking - in doing so for any 'Gospel' authors.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm But this brings me to something I believe you have failed to address. You seem to want to pin me down to the idea that I believe the scholars may use "sleight of hand". We know that not all the scholars agree. So then, the question I have to you is, are you under the impression those scholars who may hold an opposing position than you have may be dishonest in any way?
I will answer your question, after you answer mine - (attempt #6). Is Bart a liar or stupid? I again ask this question because you have indicated that the 'evidence' is very powerful.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm it is you who simply dismisses any, and every extraordinary claim, simply based upon the fact, you do not believe in the extraordinary, which I do not have to point out as being circular reasoning. I have not dismissed any other extraordinary claims that I am aware of. Rather, I have admitted that I do not know very much about them. With this being the case, how can I dismiss something I know very little about? But again, I do not have to know a thing about any other extraordinary claim, to understand, and know, if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe another.
I would imagine when an 'extraordinary claim' is placed before you, you hold more reservations, versus when an ordinary/mundane claim is placed before you? Meaning, you reserve your belief in that extraordinary claim, until you receive much more evidence than you might need for an ordinary claim?

Case/point: extraordinary = defying the laws of physics. Ordinary = following the laws of physics. If any extraordinary claim is placed before you, you likely place more scrutiny, and not just blindly hold to the same probability that it is true, verses the ordinary claim placed before you?
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm
As I told another here, we can refer to the "Spiderman analogy".
I can tell you this! When one begins to make such comparisons, they have left the realm of reality, and are in the world of "make believe" and are well on their way to intellectual suicide.
You have completely missed my point. The 'facts and evidence', for which you keep referring to, have no relevancy to the claim that a man rose from the grave and spoke to people. The only 'facts and evidence', which would substantiate such a claim, would consist of first-hand corroborated and deposed eyewitness accounts. I can pull up any work of known fiction, or an alternative claimed true holy book, and point out arbitrary 'facts and evidence'. But do these 'facts and evidence' pertain to the claim? In your case, they do not.
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:46 pm Next, we need to keep in mind I am not insisting we can demonstrate the claims to be true. Rather, it is you who is insisting there would be no reasons to believe the claims
I never said you have NO reason(s). I gave you the main reason(s) already. You adhere to the "passion and punishment of Paul & co." However, this looks to be a faith-based rationale; and nothing more.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #353

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #347]
Could anyone with access to the same set of available facts and evidence apply your method accordingly and conclude the resurrection was not just an imagined event but a real historical event?
I can tell you this. No one can look at the facts, and evidence we have, and come to the conclusion, those who were making the claims, were attempting to describe "imagined events". The point is, one may look at the facts, and evidence, and attempt to suggest those who made the claims, imagined the events which really did not happen, but they cannot say the events were described as "imaginary events". So then, we have facts, and evidence to support the resurrection claims. What we need now is some sort of facts, and evidence those who were making the claims were imagining what they claimed.

I truly wish you and your family the best as you are preparing for the move, and I completely understand your lack of time to spend here on the site. I sympathize with you on your inability to be here on the site, because I am getting to the point in which I am thinking that I need to spend less time here myself. With this being the case, allow me to give you some information which you may not have had the time to have read as of yet, as far as this conversation is concerned.

I have referred to one of the most outspoken critical scholars of Christianity who had this to say,
Bart Ehrman wrote:Many Christians don't want to hear this, but the reality is that there are lots of other explanations for what happened to Jesus that are more probable than the explanation that he was raised from the dead. None of these explanations is very probable
You see, this scholar is acknowledging the fact that the evidence we have has nothing whatsoever to do with those who were attempting to describe some sort of "imagined event". Rather, this scholar is acknowledging these folks were attempting to describe real historical events. He appeals to the probabilities of the resurrection, while going on to admit, all the other alternative explanations of the facts, and evidence we have, would not be "very probable". In other words, we have a critical scholar of Christianity, who you would think has thought of all the other possible explanations one can imagine, who is clearly admitting, all these other explanations, "are not very probable".

Now, why do you suppose this scholar is admitting all these other alternative explanations "are not very probable"? Well, that would be because he understands, these other alternative explanations will not stand up to the facts, and evidence we have. Since we have an historical scholar who is admitting these other alternative explanations do not stand up to the facts, and evidence we have to support the resurrection, this demonstrates to us we indeed have facts, and evidence to support the resurrection. Moreover, this scholar is only pointing to the probabilities of a resurrection, and I would think we would all agree the probabilities of a resurrection is not very good at all. However, since all the other explanations this scholar can think of "would not be very probable" how would this be any sort of evidence, against the claims?
The scientific method, as an alternative example, is demonstrably reliable because everyone who applies it correctly and consistently to the same set of facts and evidence will produce identical results.
The problem here is, we are not dealing with science, but rather with history, which is two different fields of study. Science is not in the business of telling us what has happened in history. Science can only tell us a resurrection would be scientifically impossible. However, explaining to us a resurrection is scientifically impossible, would in no way demonstrate a resurrection has never occurred in history. Rather, it would simply tell us, if such an event has occurred, science would not be able to explain such an event. Science is in the business of dealing with falsifiable claims. It has no business dealing with those claims which would be unfalsifiable.
It seems to me that many people have attempted to apply your described method to the same set of facts and evidence but were unable to produce identical results while other people were able to produce identical results.
Correct! However, the same would go for "your described method" as well. In other words, I believe you look at "the same set of facts and evidence" and come to the conclusion we should all doubt the claims. However, we have those right here on this site who look at the same set of facts, and evidence, and have come to the conclusion the claims can absolutely be demonstrated to be false, who disagree with you that we should simply doubt the claims but reject them out right. On the other hand we have someone else who I will not mentioned at the time, who is asserting, those who reject, or doubt the claims, have no basis in which to do so. Then of course there are those such as myself who are convinced the claims are in fact true, and insist we have facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, but allows the liberty to others to examine the facts, and evidence we have, and come to a different conclusion. In other words, while I am insisting there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, I am not insisting there would be no reasons to doubt. The problem is, we have those who want to insist there would be no facts, evidence and reasons to believe the claims, and they fail to be able to demonstrate this to be the case.
What might be the explanation for this discrepancy?


Well, that would be because we can all look at the same set of facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions. This happens all the time. We have folks who sit on a jury together, and hear the same set of facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions. We can have detectives look at the same facts, and evidence concerning a crime scene, and come to different conclusions. In fact, even scientists can look at the same set of facts, and evidence and come to different conclusions. In other words, we can all look at the same set of facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions, and all have good reasons to hold the conclusions they have. I understand, and am fine with this. However, there seem to be others who want to insist what they happen to believe is the only sensible conclusion, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.
Are people misunderstanding your described method and applying it incorrectly to the available facts and evidence?
I do not believe this to be the case. I believe folks can use sound facts, evidence, reason, and logic, and come to completely different conclusions. So then I would ask you the same question, are you under the impression those who disagree with the position you have, "are people misunderstanding your described method and applying it incorrectly to the available facts and evidence"? In other words, are you suggesting that if folks would simply listen to you, and apply your method correctly they would have to come to the same conclusions as you?
If the application of your method to the same set of facts and evidence does not consistently distinguish a real resurrection from an imagined resurrection for anyone who applies it accurately, then what is the justification for using that method if it does not produce demonstrably reliable results?


Again, the same would go for your method as well. If I used your method would I absolutely come to the same conclusions you have? I highly doubt that I would, but then you would complain that I did not apply it correctly, which sort of demonstrates one who would like to tell us all how we ought to think.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3272
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #354

Post by POI »

Realworldjack wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:39 am [Replying to bluegreenearth in post #347]
Could anyone with access to the same set of available facts and evidence apply your method accordingly and conclude the resurrection was not just an imagined event but a real historical event?
I can tell you this. No one can look at the facts, and evidence we have, and come to the conclusion, those who were making the claims, were attempting to describe "imagined events". The point is, one may look at the facts, and evidence, and attempt to suggest those who made the claims, imagined the events which really did not happen, but they cannot say the events were described as "imaginary events". So then, we have facts, and evidence to support the resurrection claims. What we need now is some sort of facts, and evidence those who were making the claims were imagining what they claimed.

I truly wish you and your family the best as you are preparing for the move, and I completely understand your lack of time to spend here on the site. I sympathize with you on your inability to be here on the site, because I am getting to the point in which I am thinking that I need to spend less time here myself. With this being the case, allow me to give you some information which you may not have had the time to have read as of yet, as far as this conversation is concerned.

I have referred to one of the most outspoken critical scholars of Christianity who had this to say,
Bart Ehrman wrote:Many Christians don't want to hear this, but the reality is that there are lots of other explanations for what happened to Jesus that are more probable than the explanation that he was raised from the dead. None of these explanations is very probable
You see, this scholar is acknowledging the fact that the evidence we have has nothing whatsoever to do with those who were attempting to describe some sort of "imagined event". Rather, this scholar is acknowledging these folks were attempting to describe real historical events. He appeals to the probabilities of the resurrection, while going on to admit, all the other alternative explanations of the facts, and evidence we have, would not be "very probable". In other words, we have a critical scholar of Christianity, who you would think has thought of all the other possible explanations one can imagine, who is clearly admitting, all these other explanations, "are not very probable".

Now, why do you suppose this scholar is admitting all these other alternative explanations "are not very probable"? Well, that would be because he understands, these other alternative explanations will not stand up to the facts, and evidence we have. Since we have an historical scholar who is admitting these other alternative explanations do not stand up to the facts, and evidence we have to support the resurrection, this demonstrates to us we indeed have facts, and evidence to support the resurrection. Moreover, this scholar is only pointing to the probabilities of a resurrection, and I would think we would all agree the probabilities of a resurrection is not very good at all. However, since all the other explanations this scholar can think of "would not be very probable" how would this be any sort of evidence, against the claims?
The scientific method, as an alternative example, is demonstrably reliable because everyone who applies it correctly and consistently to the same set of facts and evidence will produce identical results.
The problem here is, we are not dealing with science, but rather with history, which is two different fields of study. Science is not in the business of telling us what has happened in history. Science can only tell us a resurrection would be scientifically impossible. However, explaining to us a resurrection is scientifically impossible, would in no way demonstrate a resurrection has never occurred in history. Rather, it would simply tell us, if such an event has occurred, science would not be able to explain such an event. Science is in the business of dealing with falsifiable claims. It has no business dealing with those claims which would be unfalsifiable.
It seems to me that many people have attempted to apply your described method to the same set of facts and evidence but were unable to produce identical results while other people were able to produce identical results.
Correct! However, the same would go for "your described method" as well. In other words, I believe you look at "the same set of facts and evidence" and come to the conclusion we should all doubt the claims. However, we have those right here on this site who look at the same set of facts, and evidence, and have come to the conclusion the claims can absolutely be demonstrated to be false, who disagree with you that we should simply doubt the claims but reject them out right. On the other hand we have someone else who I will not mentioned at the time, who is asserting, those who reject, or doubt the claims, have no basis in which to do so. Then of course there are those such as myself who are convinced the claims are in fact true, and insist we have facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, but allows the liberty to others to examine the facts, and evidence we have, and come to a different conclusion. In other words, while I am insisting there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, I am not insisting there would be no reasons to doubt. The problem is, we have those who want to insist there would be no facts, evidence and reasons to believe the claims, and they fail to be able to demonstrate this to be the case.
What might be the explanation for this discrepancy?


Well, that would be because we can all look at the same set of facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions. This happens all the time. We have folks who sit on a jury together, and hear the same set of facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions. We can have detectives look at the same facts, and evidence concerning a crime scene, and come to different conclusions. In fact, even scientists can look at the same set of facts, and evidence and come to different conclusions. In other words, we can all look at the same set of facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions, and all have good reasons to hold the conclusions they have. I understand, and am fine with this. However, there seem to be others who want to insist what they happen to believe is the only sensible conclusion, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.
Are people misunderstanding your described method and applying it incorrectly to the available facts and evidence?
I do not believe this to be the case. I believe folks can use sound facts, evidence, reason, and logic, and come to completely different conclusions. So then I would ask you the same question, are you under the impression those who disagree with the position you have, "are people misunderstanding your described method and applying it incorrectly to the available facts and evidence"? In other words, are you suggesting that if folks would simply listen to you, and apply your method correctly they would have to come to the same conclusions as you?
If the application of your method to the same set of facts and evidence does not consistently distinguish a real resurrection from an imagined resurrection for anyone who applies it accurately, then what is the justification for using that method if it does not produce demonstrably reliable results?


Again, the same would go for your method as well. If I used your method would I absolutely come to the same conclusions you have? I highly doubt that I would, but then you would complain that I did not apply it correctly, which sort of demonstrates one who would like to tell us all how we ought to think.
I have stated, time and time again, such claims are not falsifiable. Hence, I have no right to state, they did NOT happen - (whether this be a 'resurrection', 'ascending to heaven on a white horse', 'Golden Plates', 'haunted houses', etc). If I instead stated they certainly did not happen, that would be a positive claim; for which I would then have to (substantiate/prove/demonstrate). Otherwise, my positive claim is then baseless and/or nothing more than an opinion. I could then only confidently appeal to the fact that 99.99999999% of all humans have not yet ascended from their graves after clinical death.

I instead state I have no, or not enough, valid reason(s) to believe they did happen. See the difference? So we can then ask, what counts as 'evidence' to substantiate such said claim?

Your rationale, that a man rose from the grave and spoke to many, is that Paul wrote about hanging around with a large group of people who also 'experienced' what Paul claimed to have also experienced. However, as soon as I press you about if we can even substantiate what Paul experienced alone, you then hand-wave his claim away; stating we do not even need his claim. I suspect because we agree that Paul's claim was not backed up or corroborated by any others on the scene that day. However, Paul's claim is the only one, for which we actually know is/was actually made by him. The rest, Paul merely names them. And none of them are ever corroborated either. Further, none are apparently deposed/challenged/questioned in any viable way.

Your claim is that it was a large group of people who all already believed. Hence, none would be challenged in their claim(s). Then I guess it would be logical to dismiss such baseless claims, since none of them were ever substantiated. This, of course, would be to assume that we actually DO have 100's of eyewitnesses?.?.?.?.?.?.?.....????????

We see this sort of thing all the time however... Go to any Pentecostal church, for instance. Dozens or hundreds will speak in tongues - (another unfalsifiable action). But even if you were there, first-hand to witness these 'experiences', would you believe they were having some 'external experiences'? Or would you instead surmise they were likely merely speaking with themselves alone? Likely, you and I would agree. They are likely not having any type of 'external experience(s)'. It would not matter if 5 of them protest that they are, or 500. And this is also while knowing that the Bible mentions 'tongue speaking' in some capacity. Now circle this back to Paul's said "audible vision' experience. If we at least had others, who independently claimed they saw and heard what Paul saw and heard on that day, at least we would have that! But we do not. Hence, which is maybe why you too can so easily dismiss Paul's claim to having an 'audible vision'. (i,e.) That which can be asserted without "evidence" can be just as easily be dismissed without "evidence". And by 'evidence', I mean first-hand corroborated and deposed eyewitness attestation.

And that is ultimately where it ends.... There is/are reason(s) you and I have no problem speaking about "Paul's" writings. Meaning, we both feel there exists substantial 'evidence' he is responsible for his writings. But when it comes to all the other writings, we must tread lightly. Which may be a reason you make statements, such as... 'the author to Theophilus'; verses just stating 'Luke' ;)

I again have to circle back to the fact you state there exists "very powerful evidence." So again, what counts as 'evidence', at all, for a claimed witnessed one time extraordinary evident? I'd say the only type of 'evidence', which would substantiate such a claim would be first-hand corroborated and deposed eyewitness attestation. How about you?

If the goal is "1", 0+0+0+0+0 does not equal "1". All your given points of 'evidence', look to equal a bunch of "0's".
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3272
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #355

Post by POI »

After roughly 350 posts, here is where we look to have landed, thus far...

"Venom's" belief is based upon credulity. Which-is-to-mean, his inference is that an 'external agency', (God), is interfacing with him. Whether it be by sometimes giving him 'warm sensations', and/or nodding (His) head in perpetual approval, as "Venom" continues to do 'good deeds'. Nevermind that is it more highly probable that he is in self-deception -- (either by mistaking this 'external agency' with a differing 'external agency' or merely fooling himself and there exists no 'external agency' at all). He has not bothered to try and (flesh out) this mode of reasoning. I suspect, as he also validated, it has to do with early indoctrination -- which is quite hard to shake.

"Jack's" belief looks to be based upon 'faith'. His argument looks to be... Paul never would have been able to get away with all the stuff he wrote about, being that all the claims were made about many of the ones which were with him. All these folks would certainly have told Paul he was a liar, or full of nonsense, had these folks not had the experiences Paul claimed they had experienced. But it takes quite a bit of 'faith' to reach a confidence level in this conclusion. Why?

- We do not know who wrote any of the Gospel accounts? It may have been proclaimed eyewitnesses, literate scribes writing what they heard from oral tradition, later scribes being told what to write by authority - (the church, other).... And we already started to go into what counts as an 'eyewitness', the apparent pitfalls of oral tradition, and not to mention if the Gospels were merely written by later believers telling scribes what to write.

- Since none of these other authors can be identified, we have no starting point, like we do with Paul of Tarsus and Joseph Smith. It's also likely none, or almost none of these said 'witnesses' could read or write any ways. Reading and writing was not the norm during this era. Hence, how would these folks even know what to cross reference from Paul's writings? Like I mentioned prior, Paul's writings were not yet part of any formal canon (I.E.) 'NT'. Hence, who cares WHAT Paul wrote about, quite frankly... By the time it became canon, guess what? No matter how long people lived, they would still all be dead.

- By the time Paul wrote of his claims, where were all these folks? Were they still with him to 'cross reference' his claims? Again, 'faith'. Case/point, when he writes about the '500', he states "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." This would indicate this claim was made after they were no longer in his presence? This is a rather large claim, which has no verification of any kind, being that these '500' were not even identified.

- Since we know stuff was added later, in various spots of the 'NT', how do we know all the claims which Paul made himself were all from Paul himself? Meaning, maybe what Paul wrote was from him, but we only have later copies; which were 'modified' by other(s)?

- EVEN IF Paul hung out with a bunch of folks who all claim the same 'experience', was their experiences challenged/deposed? The answer is no. What we do have, is Paul's claim(s), and no others, from such said group to back up Paul's claims - (unless you wish to assert that the other 'NT' writers were with Paul, when his claimed experience happened, and you can identify them by name). Out of the "hundreds" of said witnesses, none of them happen to write about it?

The take-away here, is that you have claims from Paul, and the rest, who knows? Seems you would need to shoehorn in a bunch of 'faith' to reach a confident conclusion that Paul's claims were 'validated/real'
Last edited by POI on Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #356

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #350]
Interesting!
I direct you to Revelation 3:16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
This is really sad, and may be the reason you ended up being a missionary, by applying passages which would have nothing to do with you in the least. I mean, this passage is clearly addressed to the Laodicea Church, and is clearly addressing concerns in that particular Church, and somehow, someway, you are able to have it apply to my admitting I know very little about other religions? GOOD GRIEF! This is exactly how we have those who end up as missionaries, or in the ministry, who later reject Christianity, because somehow, someway, everything in the Bible, must, and has to apply to them. It is really sort of strange how these same exact folks, would have no problem at all with any other written material determining what would apply to them, as opposed to what would not apply, but somehow, someway, when it comes to the Bible, they lose this ability.
Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other gods before me.
I sure wont judge you if you consider other religions.


What I would like to do is to consider any other religion you would like, as to the historical facts, and evidence is concerned, and compare this to Christianity. And hey! If you are convinced that if I were to do this then I would be putting other gods before God, then I am willing to commit this sin. Not to mention that as a Christian I am not tied to any sort of law. In fact, if you are under the impression that it would be a sin for me to be open to the idea any of these other religions may in fact be true, then you would be correct in that I am committing this sin as well.
World religions and how they developed fasinates me.
This does not answer the question. The question is, have you been able to analyze, and study all the different religions in the world in order to determine if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these religions. Allow me to answer for you. You have not, nor would I, because this would be impossible. However, I would not have to know a thing about any of these other religions, in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims. I mean, you make these arguments as if I am so weak minded that I have not already thought of these things myself?
Nope, I point to intellectual honesty, or the lack of it.
How is it being intellectually dishonest to acknowledge the fact that I do not know very much about any of the other religions, and go on to acknowledge one does not have to know about any other religion in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe another religion? If we were to somehow be able to demonstrate all other religions to be false, how would this impact the Christian claims in any way?
For example, if religious holy books are to be trusted, then they are to be trusted.
Oh really? So then, if there are reasons to believe the claims of one religion, how in the world would this obligate us to believe the other religious claims as well? I am sure how you can see this would make no sense.
Picking one favorite to trust while excluding all others would be intellectually dishonest.
Again, I can tell you this, I cannot imagine one who truly understands Christianity who would pick it as a favorite. Moreover, this would not explain those who did not want to believe Christianity, and were out to demonstrate Christianity to be false, who came to believe Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, by studying, and analyzing the facts, and evidence, that you claim is not there. Therefore, you are simply assuming since this is the way in which you operated as a Christian, this must, and has to be the way in which all Christians operate, ignoring the fact there are Christians, who did not want to be Christians.
I'm also fasinated at how civilizations throughout all known time have invented gods to explain the unknown.
Great! So, how does this in any way demonstrate there would be no reasons to believe the claims of Christianity?
It wouldn't. Purposfully not looking into them or actively comparing those claims to your own could be a defense mechanism at play.
Again, I will be more than happy to compare Christianity to any of the other religions you claim to be so fascinated with, in order to compare the real historical facts, and evidence is concerned, but thus far you have failed to take up the offer, which seems to demonstrate that it is you who is using the defense mechanism.
Let's compare, shall we?
Are religious holy books to be trusted as being factual?


I would suggest, none of the religious holy books are to be trusted. Rather, what I would suggest is, before one were to trust what is said in such a book, to actually read, study, and analyze what is said, in order to determine if there would be facts, and evidence, and reasons to believe what is contained. You know, instead of simply reading the book, and then packing your bags to head off to the mission field?
There is no need anyone should look at your religion to attempt to determine if there are reasons to believe either though.
I have never once suggested that anyone should look at my religion to attempt to determine if there are reasons to believe it. It is none of my concern as to whether others do this or not. However, when there are those who want to insist I would have no reason to believe as I do, then they need to be able to demonstrate this to be the case, and thus far this has not happened in the least.
Yet you look to that one religion, why not others?
I have attempted to explain this to you. I have had no reason whatsoever to analyze these other religions. However, I not only had a very good reason to study, and analyze the Christian claims, I really had no choice. In other words, I was really not interested at all in doing this study, and would have rather left it alone, but I had no choice in the matter.
Islam has one, I'm sure you know about it.
I am aware of the book, but I cannot say I have ever even read a sentence contained in it.
I have asked to see these things you claim existed so we can all examine to see if their claims changed over the years before men decided they belong to be included in to what we now call the Bible. I do not dispute that claims were made before the Bible was compiled.

The readers understand that we cannot examine the claims to see if they changed, why don't you? Therefore, all we have is what is included in the Bible that we now have. Therefore it is fruitless to point to unknown writings that we don't have and it is wishful thinking to assume they were not modified (like Goliath's height) over the years.
You can continue to say the same things over, and over, if you like, but I am going to repeat my same response over, and over. If you have some sort of evidence there were any sort of modifications to what the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John report as far as the resurrection is concerned, then you need to supply such evidence, otherwise we will have to assume you are simply throwing this idea out there with no facts, and evidence, and referring to Goliath is not in any way evidence.
How is this not reason enough to at least consider that modification could have taken place?
Well, these modifications could have taken place, but we would need some sort of evidence this would be the case, and pointing to material which would have been authored hundreds of years before, does not count as evidence the material we are now referring to would have been modified.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #357

Post by bluegreenearth »

Realworldjack wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:39 am [Replying to bluegreenearth in post #347]
Again, the same would go for your method as well. If I used your method would I absolutely come to the same conclusions you have? I highly doubt that I would, but then you would complain that I did not apply it correctly, which sort of demonstrates one who would like to tell us all how we ought to think.
Apparently, you have applied my method and reached the same conclusion as me. You've already conceded that it is not currently possible for anyone to KNOW if the resurrection claim is true based on the limited facts and evidence which are available and its unfalsifiability:
Science is in the business of dealing with falsifiable claims. It has no business dealing with those claims which would be unfalsifiable.
I am not insisting we can demonstrate the claims to be true.
Likewise, I am not insisting we can demonstrate an unfalsifiable claim is false for the same reason. So, by your own admission, my method produces consistent results when applied to the same set of data.

Where we depart from each other is in your faith that the available facts and evidence are sufficient to justify a confident BELIEF in the resurrection claim. From my perspective, if the available facts and evidence were objectively sufficient, everyone would be compelled by them to believe the claim was true without any need for faith in the suitability of those facts and evidence to justify that belief. Since the available facts and evidence do not compel belief in the claim, they are not objectively suitable to justify that belief. Therefore, any subsequent belief in the claim must require an act of faith on the part of the believers to accept the available facts and evidence as sufficient to justify their belief.

Again, this is where your method extends beyond my own to produce inconsistent results. My method stops at the point where the available facts and evidence are insufficient to objectively demonstrate if the claim is true or false. If I were to proceed using your method for acquiring a belief, I would have faith that the available facts and evidence were sufficient to justify the belief that the resurrection claim was false, even though I couldn't objectively demonstrate the claim was false. Using the identical method for acquiring a belief, you proceed by having faith that the available facts and evidence were sufficient to justify the belief that the resurrection claim was true, even though you can't objectively demonstrate the claim was true. When the method used to acquire a belief can be applied to the same set of facts and evidence to justify two incompatible and contradictory beliefs about the resurrection claim in this way, what does such an outcome imply about the reliability of the method?

Note: To any readers who might attempt to argue that my comments above would apply equally to beliefs in scientific claims, the distinction between falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims makes all the difference here.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3272
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #358

Post by POI »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:45 am
Realworldjack wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:39 am [Replying to bluegreenearth in post #347]
Again, the same would go for your method as well. If I used your method would I absolutely come to the same conclusions you have? I highly doubt that I would, but then you would complain that I did not apply it correctly, which sort of demonstrates one who would like to tell us all how we ought to think.
Apparently, you have applied my method and reached the same conclusion as me. You've already conceded that it is not currently possible for anyone to KNOW if the resurrection claim is true based on the limited facts and evidence which are available and its unfalsifiability:
Science is in the business of dealing with falsifiable claims. It has no business dealing with those claims which would be unfalsifiable.
I am not insisting we can demonstrate the claims to be true.
Likewise, I am not insisting we can demonstrate an unfalsifiable claim is false for the same reason. So, by your own admission, my method produces consistent results when applied to the same set of data.

Where we depart from each other is in your faith that the available facts and evidence are sufficient to justify a confident BELIEF in the resurrection claim. From my perspective, if the available facts and evidence were objectively sufficient, everyone would be compelled by them to believe the claim was true without any need for faith in the suitability of those facts and evidence to justify that belief. Since the available facts and evidence do not compel belief in the claim, they are not objectively suitable to justify that belief. Therefore, any subsequent belief in the claim must require an act of faith on the part of the believers to accept the available facts and evidence as sufficient to justify their belief.

Again, this is where your method extends beyond my own to produce inconsistent results. My method stops at the point where the available facts and evidence are insufficient to objectively demonstrate if the claim is true or false. If I were to proceed using your method for acquiring a belief, I would have faith that the available facts and evidence were sufficient to justify the belief that the resurrection claim was false, even though I couldn't objectively demonstrate the claim was false. Using the identical method for acquiring a belief, you proceed by having faith that the available facts and evidence were sufficient to justify the belief that the resurrection claim was true, even though you can't objectively demonstrate the claim was true. When the method used to acquire a belief can be applied to the same set of facts and evidence to justify two incompatible and contradictory beliefs about the resurrection claim in this way, what does such an outcome imply about the reliability of the method?

Note: To any readers who might attempt to argue that my comments above would apply equally to beliefs in scientific claims, the distinction between falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims makes all the difference here.
I guess the take-away question(s) to ask of "Jack" here would be...

Is it possible to apprehend/infer an unfalsifiable claim, or must one take the unfalsifiable claim upon 'faith'?

By apprehend/infer, I mean you have no choice whether or not to believe the given claim. Example: Someone tells you "a human walked through the mud over there." You then see many Nike shoe prints in the mud and then also infer a human has been there. And by 'faith', I mean (to hope for) or (to trust in) the presented claim. Which would then raise another question... If (any/all) unfalsifiable claims require 'faith', why have 'faith' it is true; verses to remain undecided or have doubt? Is it due to the OP points, such as indoctrination, geography, wanting the claim(s) to be true, etc?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Post Reply