Is eye witness testimony enough?

[Justin108]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

[bjs]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

Concerning the events which the Bible records, what would be enough?

Personally I think the choice for God to place his "word" in a book is a rediculous choice. If I were God I would merely communicate directly to everyone instead.

I do not understand what makes a book “ridiculous?�

Why would someone listen if God were to “communicate directly?� We still could not prove that it is God doing the communicating.

[bjs]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

Concerning the events which the Bible records, what would be enough?

Emperical evidance and/or a repeatable test or two would be a start.

What empirical and or/repeatable tests could be done to establish an event in the life of a historical person?

If Jesus claimed divinity and done nothing miraculous (that is, did only things that can be repeated), would you thenbelieve his claim?

[Cewakiyelo]

No. Eyewitness testimony is not enough. The eyewitness testimony only reveals what they saw and heard. It is what they believe. However, for our life it is not what others believe that concerns God. It is what we believe that concerns God. It is a personal relationship He seeks. Those whom truly believe do not believe because someone else believed before them, they believe because the have received personal conformation.

Personal conformation comes when we search in earnest for God. When we come to a point in our lives when we need help that is bigger then ourselves. When we are steadfast in our belief that God is not there He will not be there for us. Not because He is not willing but because we are not willing. When we open the door to the possibility that He exists He can then begin to reveal Himself. That is to say as an example: "God, I do not know what to believe. I do not know if you are there or not. I want to know you if you are real. I want your help if you can. I can't do this on my own as I am making a mess of it. If you are there please show me. I want to believe but I am confused. Please help me." You do not have to have faith to have Him come to you. However, we cant expect Him to show us anything if we have dug our heels in claiming he does not exist.

The problem with your proposal here is that this would need to be true of every religion on earth.

Either that, or the vast majority of religious people would need to be totally insincere fakes.

For example, if Christianity is true, then not only would all Muslims and Jews need to be faking their sincerity to have a sincere relationship with God, but so would all other non-Abrahamic religious people. Every Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, etc, including every religion on Earth, would all need to be faking their sincere desire to know God.

That is totally unreasonable, IMHO.

In fact, not only would this need to apply to non-Christians, if Christianity were true, but it would also need to apply to all the disagreeing denominations of Christianity.

How could the same God be simultaneously guiding the beliefs of Christian who have dramatically different ideas concerning what this God supposedly expects from people?

So this ideal simply can't hold water.

Unless, like I say, it's applied to all religions throughout the world. But that would violate the Christian claim that people can only get to God by confessing that the Hebrew Jesus was the one and only Christ sent by God to pay for our sins, etc.

So this idea necessarily has to be false.

It wouldn't just rule out atheists as having refused to seek God, but it would violate the sincerity of all spiritual and religious people who do not believe in the Hebrew rumors.

Moreover, listen to what you, yourself have said in your own words:

When we open the door to the possibility that He exists He can then begin to reveal Himself. That is to say as an example: "God, I do not know what to believe. I do not know if you are there or not. I want to know you if you are real. I want your help if you can. I can't do this on my own as I am making a mess of it. If you are there please show me. I want to believe but I am confused. Please help me." You do not have to have faith to have Him come to you. However, we cant expect Him to show us anything if we have dug our heels in claiming he does not exist.

Many atheists on these very boards are constantly asking for any sign or evidence at all that this God might exist.

Do you think they haven't asked a potential God himself for this same type of confirmation?

In fact, many atheists actually were quite religious before they became atheists. They actually became atheists precisely because they weren't getting any answers, signals, or feedback from this God.

Also you say:

Personal conformation comes when we search in earnest for God. When we come to a point in our lives when we need help that is bigger then ourselves.

When we come to a point in our lives when we need help that is bigger than ourselves?

If that were true then no one would have any reason to seek God until they needed help with something they are convinced they have no control over themselves.

However, the problem is that this God apparently never pans out in that department.

I'm even a religious person myself. And I used to be a Christian, I asked many time "In Jesus Name" for God's help. There were even times when I asked God directly since Jesus' name didn't appear to be of any help.

What does it say in this hearsay rumors about Jesus?

They claim that Jesus said the following:

John.14:13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

So how many times do we need to ask? And how many times do we need to see these words fail before we start to realize that there isn't any truth in them?

Also getting back to my original point about your last quote:

What would I need help with now that is bigger than myself?

Everyone who was ever close to me that I loved is now dead.

I certainly don't need help with any of that. Jesus has already failed to come through on those counts violating the promise he was rumored to have offered.

The only thing that I might need help with at this point is to avoid my own death. But why would I even want to do that? On the contrary, I'm looking forward to it.

So at this point I don't even need a God.

I think I can die on my own naturally.

To your first point about that premise needing to hold true for all religions. First of as I said it is about individual relationships, not religions. Secondly it would not have to hold true for all religions, if I was speaking of religions. If there is only One God above all others than it would be those religions that honor that fact. It is as I said it is one thing not to have faith but it is another thing to deny.

As for you and your christian background. I too was raised Christian. I went to Catholic schools and served the alter. I claimed great belief as I went through the motions. But I to stepped away from Christianity. I said I believed but I really didn't. I did not believe in God at all. He did not exist in my world. It was not until I was 30 that I came to my belief. I realize now no mater how much faith I though I had, I said I had, I believed I had, it was impossible to have because I was not mature enough to make such a choice. It was not until I had the real desire to know. I had to be mature enough to understand what I was accepting into my life. As a child or adolescent we are not able to make that decision and others can not do it for us. Some never experience God in their life. Perhaps to much happened that causes to great of doubt to the point of denial. But we can not hope to find God if we paint Him out of the picture.

Your words tell me that you did not have faith in God either. You may have told yourself so but they fact that you say "Unless, like I say, it's applied to all religions throughout the world. But that would violate the Christian claim that people can only get to God by confessing that the Hebrew Jesus was the one and only Christ sent by God to pay for our sins, etc." That suggests that you once had believed what people told you the bible said. That is not what the bible says, it is only what people say about the bible. You had faith in the instruction of men. That is another reason why a child or adolescent is not mature enough. God is seeking to talk with us directly and if we are leaning on the teachings of others we are not listening to God.

You say, "I certainly don't need help with any of that. Jesus has already failed to come through on those counts violating the promise he was rumored to have offered." You don't need God's help, so why should he come to your aid. You say he let you down. When did you believe in Him? Did He let you down because he did not do things the way you thought they should be done? Someone in the hospital dying and we pray for God to help them and they die shortly after. Does that mean He didn't help them? Maybe He did help by letting them die sooner than later, thereby ending their suffering swiftly. Help comes to those who believe and that help is as they need not as they desire.

If I had to guess, I would bet you walked away from Christianity because things didn't add up the way everyone was telling you the story went. You ran and have not looked back. If that is close is that God's fault? Is that the Bibles fault? Or, is it the people that fed you rubbish? In the end it is our own fault if we do not have that relationship with God.

[Justin108]

I do not understand what makes a book “ridiculous?�

.

A book is a rediculous alternative for an omnipotent being to use. It's just as well I send a letter to my roommate when all I have to do is talk to him face to face.

Why would someone listen if God were to “communicate directly?� We still could not prove that it is God doing the communicating

If the voice said "I am God" it would be a good indicator. That and the fact that telepathy can not be reproduced by men where as a book can. If everyone on the face of this earth heard the same voice of God in their head, people would not have reason to question it. A book however has plenty reason to be questioned.


And this is not the point of my OP. Stop asking pointless questions to avoid the OP and address the question of: How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

[TheTruth101]

I do not understand what makes a book “ridiculous?�

.

A book is a rediculous alternative for an omnipotent being to use. It's just as well I send a letter to my roommate when all I have to do is talk to him face to face.

Why would someone listen if God were to “communicate directly?� We still could not prove that it is God doing the communicating

If the voice said "I am God" it would be a good indicator. That and the fact that telepathy can not be reproduced by men where as a book can. If everyone on the face of this earth heard the same voice of God in their head, people would not have reason to question it. A book however has plenty reason to be questioned.


And this is not the point of my OP. Stop asking pointless questions to avoid the OP and address the question of: How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

What's the difference Justin? Both (above portion) falls under 'the Word' being understood

[Justin108]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

Concerning the events which the Bible records, what would be enough?

Emperical evidance and/or a repeatable test or two would be a start.

What empirical and or/repeatable tests could be done to establish an event in the life of a historical person?

If Jesus claimed divinity and done nothing miraculous (that is, did only things that can be repeated), would you thenbelieve his claim?

How do we know he performed miracles? That's the whole point of my question. Him performing miracles is based on CLAIMS by supposed eye witnesses.


None of you are addressing the OP. You're all evading it by trying to turn the table. The question stands: How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

[Justin108]

I do not understand what makes a book “ridiculous?�

.

A book is a rediculous alternative for an omnipotent being to use. It's just as well I send a letter to my roommate when all I have to do is talk to him face to face.

Why would someone listen if God were to “communicate directly?� We still could not prove that it is God doing the communicating

If the voice said "I am God" it would be a good indicator. That and the fact that telepathy can not be reproduced by men where as a book can. If everyone on the face of this earth heard the same voice of God in their head, people would not have reason to question it. A book however has plenty reason to be questioned.


And this is not the point of my OP. Stop asking pointless questions to avoid the OP and address the question of: How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

What's the difference Justin? Both (above portion) falls under 'the Word' being understood

The difference is certainty of source. How can I be certain of the source of the Bible? How can I be sure the Bible is not just a book of false claims made by men?

God speaking directly to me would not have the possible alternative of it being of man since man can not perform telepathy. I would know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this voice is God and not man.


Again you STILL have not addressed my OP. You are dancing around it by asking me frivolous questions.

[stubbornone]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

How do courts do it?

You do realize that you can send someone to jail based SOLELY on eye witness testimony?

Or you could do it like historians, who have to answer those very questions in order to rack and stack the evidential record in order to make a historical account.

Generally speaking, when witnesses give an account, we can rarely verify ALL of it, but if we can verify some of his account, then its generally considered that the remainder is accurate, though issues of humanity give rise to further questions.

Which is why historians attempt to find multiple accounts, and when we have several witnesses, witnesses considered accurate, and their statements overlap ... we can attest with a high degree of certainty that the events are accurate at least in a general, if not always in a specific sense.

Indeed, when we add it the extra-Biblical, archaeological, evidence, it lends credence to the case. Its why the academic community, almost without exception, believes there is a historical Jesus (The gospel Jesus cannot be either proven or disproven).

SO a quick question, if there was a historical Jesus, and he's just some dude like many other period preachers both before and after him, why is his message - a guy that was killed - does it lead to the creation of a massive faith group?

Additionally, as there is no way to verify the miracles of Jesus 2,000 years after the fact, what do you say about accounts from honest men who claim that they did indeed happen?

Just remember, if four men came in and claimed they saw person X murder someone, and the witnesses were all clearly honorable and their stories matched and the portions that could be checked out and verified, well, person X would likely wind up in jail ...

[Justin108]

Generally speaking, when witnesses give an account, we can rarely verify ALL of it, but if we can verify some of his account, then its generally considered that the remainder is accurate, though issues of humanity give rise to further questions.

So if a shop owner who was robbed says "a man came in with a gun and took all the money from the register then he ran out and climed on his pet dragon and flew away".

Video surveillence proves a man came in with a gun but proves nothing of his pet dragon. Would you then accept this WHOLE account?

Which is why historians attempt to find multiple accounts, and when we have several witnesses, witnesses considered accurate, and their statements overlap

On those grounds, we must accept the validity of Bigfoot and alien abductions. They both have multiple accounts and several witnesses and their statements often overlap.

Indeed, when we add it the extra-Biblical, archaeological, evidence, it lends credence to the case. Its why the academic community, almost without exception, believes there is a historical Jesus

I do too. But saying he existed and saying he walked on water and came back from the dead are different claims. I also don't doubt that Abraham Lincoln existed but does that add validity to him being a vampire hunter?

SO a quick question, if there was a historical Jesus, and he's just some dude like many other period preachers both before and after him, why is his message - a guy that was killed - does it lead to the creation of a massive faith group?

For the same reason that Muhammad lead to the creation of a massive faith group. Do you believe Muhammad was anything more than a man?

Additionally, as there is no way to verify the miracles of Jesus 2,000 years after the fact, what do you say about accounts from honest men who claim that they did indeed happen?

Honest men also claimed to have seen Bigfoot and that they were abducted by aliens. Honest men believe John Edward is a psychic. Honest men believe David Blaine can do magic.

Just remember, if four men came in and claimed they saw person X murder someone, and the witnesses were all clearly honorable and their stories matched and the portions that could be checked out and verified, well, person X would likely wind up in jail ...

I would agree: because their claims do not disagree with the laws of nature. But if 4... even 40 men came to me and claimed they saw a Leprechaun I would not believe them without further evidence. All claims are not equal. The more radical a claim the more proof is needed. Or do you disagree?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Generally speaking, when witnesses give an account, we can rarely verify ALL of it, but if we can verify some of his account, then its generally considered that the remainder is accurate, though issues of humanity give rise to further questions.

This the fallacy of composition. That we can verify part of an eyewitness account has no bearing on the accuracy of the parts of the account we cannot verify.