Is there really no evidence of God?

[Tart]

This is always a go-to statement of nonbelievers. They say "there is no evidence of God", or "there's no evidence Christianity is true", or something along those lines... But I believe in Christianity because, precisely, it was the evidence that convinced me of its truth... Just the same as Lee Stroble, Simon Greenleaf, Peter Stoner and many others like us...

So if you believe there is no evidence of God, how could you justify that to someone who believes because of the evidence? Or can you not justify it, and it is simply your opinion?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero]
The claim the Bible makes is that Jesus came and lived a historical life, which included being born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. I have good reason to believe the Bible, and specifically that the Gospels and the Book of Acts are widely hisyorical...

Do you have reason to believe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem Ephrathah?

You and yours insist that "Bethlehem Ephrathah" (as found in Micha 5) refers only to a specific place, the town of Bethlehem...and yet, you're wrong. Incorrect.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem.

You and I don't know that Micah 5:2 refers only to the town Bethlehem.

As for your actual question in the last line, I refer you back to what I said in a previous comment. You seem to operating under allowing for only one of two things: either something is proven true, or something is proven false.
Either Jesus WAS born in Bethlehem, or you are asking me to prove that he was not born in Bethlehem.

I do not believe that he was born in Bethlehem, because the only two documents that state such, Matthew and Luke, are highly suspect. This is not the same thing as me saying "I believe Jesus was born elsewhere" just that what is offered as "evidence" for the claim "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" is suspect. Not of a high enough grade.

Ok so you have no evidence it's wrong, just that the evidence is not of a high enough grade?

What do you mean by that?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero]
The claim the Bible makes is that Jesus came and lived a historical life, which included being born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. I have good reason to believe the Bible, and specifically that the Gospels and the Book of Acts are widely hisyorical...

Do you have reason to believe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem Ephrathah?

You and yours insist that "Bethlehem Ephrathah" (as found in Micha 5) refers only to a specific place, the town of Bethlehem...and yet, you're wrong. Incorrect.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem.

You and I don't know that Micah 5:2 refers only to the town Bethlehem.

As for your actual question in the last line, I refer you back to what I said in a previous comment. You seem to operating under allowing for only one of two things: either something is proven true, or something is proven false.
Either Jesus WAS born in Bethlehem, or you are asking me to prove that he was not born in Bethlehem.

I do not believe that he was born in Bethlehem, because the only two documents that state such, Matthew and Luke, are highly suspect. This is not the same thing as me saying "I believe Jesus was born elsewhere" just that what is offered as "evidence" for the claim "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" is suspect. Not of a high enough grade.

Ok so you have no evidence it's wrong, just that the evidence is not of a high enough grade?

What do you mean by that?

What you say here is wrong, in and of itself (that and the fact you are ignoring the vast majority of what I have recently written, to focus on this one little tidbit).

I am not saying "I have no evidence its wrong".
You are making the claim that Micah 5:2 refers only to the town of Bethlehem, and that Jesus being born there means he fulfilled Micah 5:2.
What I am saying is that your reasoning and justifications are highly questionable. You are not proving yourself correct, in that I have this other Bible quote (from 1 Chronicles) which talks about people named Bethlehem and Ephratah.

What is the evidence that Micah 5:2 can ONLY refer to the TOWN? That it possibly referring to PEOPLE is wrong, incorrect?
Are you so unfamiliar with Ephratah that the fact that it (the word) appears elsewhere in the Bible and NOT referring to the town is news to you?
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... yNiuBdEpPY

[Tart]

[Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero]
The claim the Bible makes is that Jesus came and lived a historical life, which included being born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. I have good reason to believe the Bible, and specifically that the Gospels and the Book of Acts are widely hisyorical...

Do you have reason to believe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem Ephrathah?

You and yours insist that "Bethlehem Ephrathah" (as found in Micha 5) refers only to a specific place, the town of Bethlehem...and yet, you're wrong. Incorrect.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem.

You and I don't know that Micah 5:2 refers only to the town Bethlehem.

As for your actual question in the last line, I refer you back to what I said in a previous comment. You seem to operating under allowing for only one of two things: either something is proven true, or something is proven false.
Either Jesus WAS born in Bethlehem, or you are asking me to prove that he was not born in Bethlehem.

I do not believe that he was born in Bethlehem, because the only two documents that state such, Matthew and Luke, are highly suspect. This is not the same thing as me saying "I believe Jesus was born elsewhere" just that what is offered as "evidence" for the claim "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" is suspect. Not of a high enough grade.

Ok so you have no evidence it's wrong, just that the evidence is not of a high enough grade?

What do you mean by that?

What you say here is wrong, in and of itself (that and the fact you are ignoring the vast majority of what I have recently written, to focus on this one little tidbit).

I am not saying "I have no evidence its wrong".
You are making the claim that Micah 5:2 refers only to the town of Bethlehem, and that Jesus being born there means he fulfilled Micah 5:2.
What I am saying is that your reasoning and justifications are highly questionable. You are not proving yourself correct, in that I have this other Bible quote (from 1 Chronicles) which talks about people named Bethlehem and Ephratah.

What is the evidence that Micah 5:2 can ONLY refer to the TOWN? That it possibly referring to PEOPLE is wrong, incorrect?
Are you so unfamiliar with Ephratah that the fact that it (the word) appears elsewhere in the Bible and NOT referring to the town is news to you?
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... yNiuBdEpPY

Well Jesus being born there is reasonable, the fact that there are prophecies of a messiah throughout the scripture is factual. And the fact that the town exists is factual.

Is there reason to believe it's NOT talking about the birth place of a messiah?

And referring to the last post on the last page "Do you have any evidence that prophecies being fulfilled were forged after the fact a event took place?"

(FYI I like to stick to one topic, and not trail off in many directions. If you like to specifically discusses a certain to tip feel free to say so)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 43 by Tart]

Well Jesus being born there is reasonable

Reasonable does not necessarily equal true.

Nor does not being reasonable necessarily equal false.

Jesus could have been born just about anywhere within the land known as Israel. What evidence do you have that he was born in the town of Bethlehem?
You have mentioned Gospels Matthew and Luke, but this isn't enough. They are known to have copied much material from each other and from the earlier Gospel Mark. The fact that there is a theological bent to them, a need to have Jesus fulfill what is regarded as prophecy, ought to give one pause (as it does to me).

the fact that there are prophecies of a messiah throughout the scripture is factual

Agreed. I agree that there are writings that are regarded by some (including yourself) to have been prophecies predicting (what was at the time of publication) the future.
You shot yourself in the foot when you earlier said that some things were regarded as prophecy after Jesus was claimed to have done them. So you and I have no idea if these claimed events were or were not made up at all, so as to retroactively be quote unquote fulfilments of prophecy.

Is there reason to believe it's NOT talking about the birth place of a messiah?

You seem to now want to move away from the claim that Micah 5:2 is supposed to ONLY be about the birth place of a messiah, and not refer to named individuals.
Why is this? Is there a possibility that Micah 5:2 could have meant people, and not a town?

And referring to the last post on the last page "Do you have any evidence that prophecies being fulfilled were forged after the fact a event took place?"

It's what you yourself said. You said that things in the Bible came to be regarded (viewed as, believed) to be prophecies after Jesus was said to have done them.

[Goat]

This is always a go-to statement of nonbelievers. They say "there is no evidence of God", or "there's no evidence Christianity is true", or something along those lines... But I believe in Christianity because, precisely, it was the evidence that convinced me of its truth... Just the same as Lee Stroble, Simon Greenleaf, Peter Stoner and many others like us...

So if you believe there is no evidence of God, how could you justify that to someone who believes because of the evidence? Or can you not justify it, and it is simply your opinion?

That depends on what you mean by 'evidence'. When someone uses that phrase, they tend to be referring to objective evidence, or 'pubic evidence'.. things that can pass the 'show me' test. Other say that 'testimony' is evidence, but that is the relating of 'private evidence', or subjective ev

The essay from Simon Greenleaf is an apologist essay that is quite metaphysical in nature, and has a large amount of logical fallacies in it. It is a series of arguments, but arguments are not evidence.

As for Lee Strobels "A Case for Christ'. that also is apologist, and attempts to give spin... it makes testimony and some historical papers (as well as some known forgeries), and tries to make it into evidence for something that it does not support. The times that he relays actual evidence, the evidence is not for the thing he is actually claiming it is for. It is evidence of what CHristians believed at that time period, not that the beliefs are true and accurate.

[Goat]

"Evidence: anything in support of an assertion"... I use the word for what it means... It's just wrong to say there is no evidence, but that is continuesly repeated by atheists as a way to discredit the actually existing evidence... I see it all the time... They claim it doesn't exist as if that helps justify Christianity is false... This is poor reasoning...

So now it looks like we are all in agreance, evidence exists...


So on a side note, you don't think Peter Stoner made any actual calculations ?

This is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'. The way the atheist is using the term 'evidence' means tangible and objective evidence. The definition you are giving is 'words in support of an argument'. This is causing a miscommunication.

[liamconnor]

This is always a go-to statement of nonbelievers. They say "there is no evidence of God", or "there's no evidence Christianity is true", or something along those lines... But I believe in Christianity because, precisely, it was the evidence that convinced me of its truth... Just the same as Lee Stroble, Simon Greenleaf, Peter Stoner and many others like us...

So if you believe there is no evidence of God, how could you justify that to someone who believes because of the evidence? Or can you not justify it, and it is simply your opinion?

Of course there is evidence of God. Skeptics who claim there is no evidence of God simply do not understand what the word "evidence" means. They take it to mean:

1) Conclusive Proof. This is most certainly not the same as evidence.

2) Empirical data: but of course, by definition, God is not perceived by the senses.

These skeptics are confused about what evidence means: evidence does not mean 'conclusive proof'. Evidence simply connotes 'data that leads without contradiction in the direction of one possible conclusion'.

Those that would respond, "The idea of God involves a contradiction and an impossibility" are simply arrogant.

They should understand that to say there is no evidence of God is to say that there is not a single piece of human experience that might, even erroneously, point in the direction of a supernatural power. That is, such people are not merely saying that Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. were wrong. They are saying they were delusional!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 47 by liamconnor]

2) Empirical data: but of course, by definition, God is not perceived by the senses.

Great. Then you agree with me that all those stories in the Bible about people who see, hear, taste, smell or touch God do not and cannot count as evidence, since as you say here...God cannot be perceived via the senses.
God declaring from the heavens that this is his son, in whom he is pleased? Doesn't count as evidence of God's existence from those people who apparently told the author of Gospel Matthew that they heard it.

So tell me liam...if perception via the senses is out...what is left? Just feeling in your heart of hearts that God is there?

such people are not merely saying that Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. were wrong. They are saying they were delusional!

Of course of course liam. People simply cannot be delusional. We should toss that out as a possibility a priori. It's against the rules or something for anyone, even famous intellectuals, to have mental disorders of any kind.

[marco]

Of course there is evidence of God. Skeptics who claim there is no evidence of God simply do not understand what the word "evidence" means.

Evidence is a means towards proving something in dispute. We may point to the stars and say these are evidence that God exists; or to the various Fibonacci sequences in nature, and say they indicate a designer. We may be wrong.

Evidence simply connotes 'data that leads without contradiction in the direction of one possible conclusion'.

And on that definition there is nothing that leads incontrovertibly to the conclusion that God exists.

That is, such people are not merely saying that Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. were wrong. They are saying they were delusional!

Nobody is saying these men were delusional, with the possible exception of the dull Augustine.
While it is touching that one should place such faith in these folk, none of them, even Augustine, claimed to be infallible. We do not know what they would conclude if they were in possession of modern knowledge rather than having a grasp of the four "basic elements." To make progress one has to possess the "arrogance" to defy the fathers of past philosophy. Einstein, with a heavy heart, had to accept his hero Newton was wrong.


The psalmist gives good guidance: Psalm 146:3 (KJV)

" Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."