"case For Christ" And "evidence That Demands A Verdict"

[Mutate]

In trying to get the truth straight and figure out what we really know for sure, I've tried to read these 2 books.

 

"Evidence" is really big and hefty, i found it too confusing and bitty to get into - as in, the layout of subjects on the page, the actual graphic design of the book is confusing. What i did read did not impress me much, he seems to expect the reader to trust him a lot, ie making lines like "history has shown us Christ lived" "the books of the bible have been shown as unchanged by history" without really pointing you to more proof. He just says things simply like "and josephus wrote about him" without going into the various debates about the tampering of the text.

 

I found this book interesting because apparently the author Josh McDowell was an atheist anti-christian who wanted to debunk Christianity, but his research proved to him it was true, so the book turned out to be proof rather than debunking

 

The other book was easy enough to read (Case for Christ). To be honest it wasnt a very balanced case. His wife is converted, and he sees a change and now nice she becomes. So he goes to visit lots of Fundie scholars and theologians to find out the truth..why he only chooses bible believing evangelicals i dont know, i guess his wifes transformation already tilted him. They tell him that the historical reports of Jesus are mostly accurate, they do admit Josephus was slighty altered to be more pro Xian but say its mostly as it was. They also debunk all the non-canon gospels by saying how ridicolous and fantastical they are.

 

Basically they tell him that when the real gospels were written, the oral tradition was very important, and they valued christ so much, that they could be trusted to keep the text pure and unaltered even with the time passed before they were written.

 

The only chance given to a non Fundie to have a say or give counter evidence in the case is Karen Armstrongs book "history of god", which he takes with him to his visits and shows problem parts to the scholars, to which they simply chuckle at her bias and lack of facing up to facts.

 

I'll give my personal view. After reading these two books and many anti-Xian/atheist books, it currently seems to me that we don't really know for sure whether Jesus lived, how close he was to the gospel description, or whether the theology is true that he died for us. The is enough vagueness either way, no one damning evidence to say yes or no. All you can do from there is use common sense and think "well considering what i know about human nature, it looks like the probably were tampered with"..."there was so much debate about it it does seem like Rome had an agenda to push that one creed".., and seeing the corruption and feeling your own disilusionment to help you. But, if you already want to be a Conservative "fundie", then there is enough vagueness to say "well even if it was altered it was God's will" etc.

 

So in conclusion I currently think that there is enough in history to help you make your mind up but not enough to really definatively convince and push anyone without other factors.

[Neon Genesis]

So, Lee Strobel didn't even interview Karen Armstrong herself, he just went to other evangelical Christians to rant about how evil she is to? Talk about being bias.

[Shyone]

It's a long way from "did Jesus exist" to "Jesus is all that."

 

Ultimately, when I examine the evidence, I can only conclude that the miracle working transforming zombie of the New Testament is not the same as the preacher. And I really don't care if someone disagrees; it doesn't matter and it's not worth arguing.

 

I really don't care if Judas kissed his left cheek, his right cheek or his butt cheeks.

[Deva]

My position is that Jesus may have well existed, as did many other would-be Messiahs, but at this date we can know nothing of what he actually said with any certainty. He probably was an apocalyptic preacher who expected the world to end in his generation. He didn't care for some of the rules in Judaism at the time. Beyond that - who knows?

[Vigile]

IIRC that big ol' thick book of McDowell's can be reduced to either he's a liar, a lunatic or a deity. He fails to mention the possibility that he just didn't exist.

 

Occam's razor cut's McDowell right down to his (white) chocolate salty balls.

[Mutate]

I expect Josh Mcdowell went to a church service in a spirit of research/travel writing, and they all kissed up to him and made him feel wanted, so he felt the love.

 

The only non fundie given a speaking part in the Stobel book is he himself, as untill the end he is a pure unbiased seeker (suposedly)

[oddbird1963]

I think the Christian apologists like McDowell, Strobel and Habermas , because they are apologists, make way too much of the reliability of oral tradition and way too little of the importance of the creative role of the early church in adapting and enhancing that early tradition.

 

Then, there is the question of what each gospel write did to enhance and add to the oral tradition. Too many hearers and too many hands get in the way.

 

That gap of 30 - 40 years before Mark and the subsequent gospels were written down, for me, makes the truth about the historical Jesus way too inaccessible for the type of commitment Christianity demands we make.

[★ Citsonga ★]

The only non fundie given a speaking part in the Stobel book is he himself, as untill the end he is a pure unbiased seeker (suposedly)

 

Yeah, supposedly!

 

Of course, what "pure unbiased seeker" would only go to those on one side of the issue and be so easily convinced with no real evidence?

 

Hell, even when I read "The Case For Christ" as a christian who agreed with most of the conclusions, I found the book to be rather weak in supporting those conclusions.

[Antlerman]

Basically they tell him that when the real gospels were written, the oral tradition was very important, and they valued christ so much, that they could be trusted to keep the text pure and unaltered even with the time passed before they were written.

I like what the Christian scholar Burton Mack says to this idea:

 

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another,

they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential

.”

 

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)

 

The whole idea of trying to "prove" Jesus as supernatural being come to earth to give us their religion is absurd. People back then did not think as they do today about truth being connect to empirical, scientific, historical evidences. McDowell and Stroble and them are making a shambles of their religion. Their books are in fact Evidence that does demands a verdict. And that verdict is that they don't understand the nature of religious belief. They're worthless, and worse.

[Kathlene]

Okay everyone....this is my first real post as a christian on these forums, so don't eat me too fast.

 

I have been wondering lately, and I know its going to sound mighty dumb, but its just my own 2 thoughts, that maybe there never will be any evidence for or against God that you are all so heavily trying to defend?

 

Maybe there isnt any clear evidence....on purpose? So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

 

I know there is that verse in the Bible that says nature is enough to point to God's evidence and existence. I know you will all blow that one out of the water.

 

Well I have come to this conclusion myself, that those who believe in God do so on faith. I guess you cant argue with that, and as someone has put so nicely to me, my brain has fallen out of my backside, lol. I have just found some things aint worth sweating over.

 

Okay, sigh....bring in the lions.

[HelloWorld]

 

 

I have been wondering lately, and I know its going to sound mighty dumb, but its just my own 2 thoughts, that maybe there never will be any evidence for or against God that you are all so heavily trying to defend?

 

 

Sure.

 

But if God eliminated all evidence on purpose, he can't blame or punish people for not choosing to believe in him.

[Antlerman]

Okay everyone....this is my first real post as a christian on these forums, so don't eat me too fast.

I hadn't realized you became a Christian again. That's fine if you find meaning in it for yourself. No problem. I would never tear at you for being sincere.

 

So to a couple points in your post....

 

I have been wondering lately, and I know its going to sound mighty dumb, but its just my own 2 thoughts, that maybe there never will be any evidence for or against God that you are all so heavily trying to defend?

It actually is the Christians such as McDowell and Srobel who are trying to say you should accept the evidence in order to convince you to believe. Any criticism that I would offer is in them taking matters of faith and using bad methods in order to create evidence that supposedly would satisfy a scientific inquiry. At this point, it is propping up faith with bad faith, bad reasoning.

 

If there is to be faith, it cannot violate reason. They demand with their bad evidence, a violation of reason, and as such a violation of faith itself. IMO.

 

Maybe there isnt any clear evidence....on purpose? So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

I wouldn't say "on purpose", as it makes it sound intentional. Rather I would say that 'belief', 'faith', etc, are in fact not based on reason. Is it 'on purpose', designed that way, that in order to dance you need to feel the beat? I'd just say it's the nature of the thing, and leave it at that.

 

I know there is that verse in the Bible that says nature is enough to point to God's evidence and existence. I know you will all blow that one out of the water.

It's a matter of perspective.

 

Well I have come to this conclusion myself, that those who believe in God do so on faith. I guess you cant argue with that, and as someone has put so nicely to me, my brain has fallen out of my backside, lol. I have just found some things aint worth sweating over.

 

Okay, sigh....bring in the lions.

No lions. But beware those Christians who need to convert everyone and say how "deceived" they are. That's religion, not a spiritual life, which it sounds like you're interested in (the latter that is).

[dagnarus]

I have been wondering lately, and I know its going to sound mighty dumb, but its just my own 2 thoughts, that maybe there never will be any evidence for or against God that you are all so heavily trying to defend?

When I was a christian I was willing to accept the fact that their was no real evidence for God and that's ok. It was mainly when I started to see that their was actually a lot of evidence against the Christian God and the bible that I started to have problems.

 

Maybe there isnt any clear evidence....on purpose? So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

If we are meant to come to God based solely upon faith, why does the bible (the gospels specifically) give all these different prophecies, and signs and what have you and point out all the supposed evidence for Jesus being the Christ. The gospels make it clear that the reason why the Jews were condemned was because they ignored the mountain of evidence before them. This becomes a bit suspect when you examine a lot of the supposed evidence the gospels give for Jesus's messianic status.

 

I know there is that verse in the Bible that says nature is enough to point to God's evidence and existence. I know you will all blow that one out of the water.

 

Well I have come to this conclusion myself, that those who believe in God do so on faith. I guess you cant argue with that, and as someone has put so nicely to me, my brain has fallen out of my backside, lol. I have just found some things aint worth sweating over.

 

Okay, sigh....bring in the lions.

Hopefully I'm not being a lion. I don't particularly want to be nasty or anything.

[mwc]

I have been wondering lately, and I know its going to sound mighty dumb, but its just my own 2 thoughts, that maybe there never will be any evidence for or against God that you are all so heavily trying to defend?

 

Maybe there isnt any clear evidence....on purpose? So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

What would be the point of all this?

 

I mean the bible is technically evidence for a certain "god" is it not? So that evidence is not destroyed. Word of mouth is a type of evidence. So that evidence exists too. In the broadest sense even just whatever things that simply are may well be taken as some sort of evidence of a "god" so at what point are we to draw the line? We can only imagine that anyone that has directly contacted this "god" or his son "jesus" are condemned as a result of direct knowledge as opposed to "faith." So Adam and Eve. Abraham, Jacob and Moses. Pretty much all the Israelites at Sinai. The apostles. Anyone "jesus" may have been in contact with. The numbers start to add up. It seems ironic considering these encounters appear geared towards giving people the evidence that people need in order to really understand and believe as opposed to something called "faith" (of the blind variety).

 

Further, if it is simply by faith that we are supposed to go to this "god" then would it not be the easiest thing to condemn people for the "devil" to simply appear in all its supernatural goodness (evilness?) and let the cat out of the bag? By it and its minions appearing from nowhere and acknowledging this otherworldly realm then "faith" is destroyed by knowledge. This would be the deathblow to any plan involving faith. Yet, these days, both good and evil forces remove themselves to act in the shadows leaving no traces or evidence. Both work on "faith" it seems.

 

mwc

[Vigile]

So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

 

I personally see faith as a liability and a cop out not a value. What makes belief without evidence noble or even desirable? Faith makes anything possible, including belief in Allah, Vishnu and invisible pink elephants.

[ShackledNoMore]

Maybe there isnt any clear evidence....on purpose? So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

But why would the christian god camouflage the truth among thousands of other man made religions, also with zero evidence? Would such a god be pleased when a person chooses him solely because he happened to have been exposed to the right religion? Would he feel any different about those who had chosen other religions entirely on faith? Religions which they had been raised under or exposed to instead of christianity? Why would a proposed god wish for us to abandon inquiry in favor of faith?

[Kathlene]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

I guess what I was trying to sort in my jumbling thoughts was maybe neither side would so call win the race for evidence, so if you do come to God it is all based entirely on whether you think he is there or not. I know it doesnt make sense. I know its probably not the case either, its just some theory in my own head I thought I would put out there and see what others thought of it.

 

I think there were some great things to ponder over in the responses I got too. Thankyou.

Btw, I am keeping my avatar the same so people can still recognise me as the same Kathlene. I did deconvert, but then went back.

[Guest ephymeris]

I actually read The Case for Christ when I was a christian because I was excited to see if there was objective proof for what I held dear. It was right after I was having the first inklings of doubt. I found this book to be a completely frustrating and defeating read because it was devoid of any points that would stand up as "proof" and was horribly biased. I'm definately no philosopher but the arguments were so fallacious, even I saw them for what they were. After I read this book, I remember thinking "maybe there's no real evidence or good arguments for christianity because there really is nothing real about this whole thing." This book was so bad it actually helped point me down the road of deconversion.

[Antlerman]

I guess what I was trying to sort in my jumbling thoughts was maybe neither side would so call win the race for evidence, so if you do come to God it is all based entirely on whether you think he is there or not. I know it doesnt make sense. I know its probably not the case either, its just some theory in my own head I thought I would put out there and see what others thought of it.

It actually makes perfect sense to me. You should tell Strobel and McDowell that. You know more than they do, apparently.

 

I think this ephymeris posted is a perfect insert for their books as an endorsement for their efforts:

I actually read The Case for Christ when I was a christian because

I was excited to see if there was objective proof for what I held dear. It was right after I was having the first inklings of doubt

. I found this book to be a completely frustrating and defeating read because it was devoid of any points that would stand up as "proof" and was horribly biased. I'm definately no philosopher but the arguments were so fallacious, even I saw them for what they were. After I read this book, I remember thinking "maybe there's no real evidence or good arguments for christianity because there really is nothing real about this whole thing."

This book was so bad it actually helped point me down the road of deconversion

.

I can see that added right on the back cover of it,

 

"

I was excited to see if there was objective proof for what I held dear. It was right after I was having the first inklings of doubt... This book was so bad it actually helped point me down the road of deconversion

."

 

Ephymeris, Ex-Christian.net

 

I can say the same thing about Josh McDowell. It's my bet these people have done more to destroy people's faith than any skeptic could ever imagine doing.

[ContraBardus]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

I guess what I was trying to sort in my jumbling thoughts was maybe neither side would so call win the race for evidence, so if you do come to God it is all based entirely on whether you think he is there or not. I know it doesnt make sense. I know its probably not the case either, its just some theory in my own head I thought I would put out there and see what others thought of it.

 

Burden of proof. Remember where it lies?

 

If we're going to say there is some sort of race for evidence, then I'm afraid the 'No God' side wins.

 

Yes, there is no 'evidence that God does not exist'. However, it is important to point out, that there's no evidence that anything does not exist. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

 

Put simply, the two sides are not on equal standing here. Stating 'God exists' is making a claim. Asking for evidence or support of that claim is not.

 

It can easily be pointed out that the immaterial and invisible would appear exactly the same as the non-existent.

 

The two positions are just not equally valid. Negatives cannot be proven.

 

God's existence draws the short straw on that one. It's an unfalsifiable claim with no supportive evidence.

 

I could just as easily claim that invisible fairies make flowers bloom.

 

We both know that isn't likely to be true. However, you could never prove that it isn't true. You could never show that the invisible fairies do not exist.

 

The idea of God is no different.

 

Also, the idea of God intentionally hiding is just a cop out argument.

 

If God willingly tricks us into not believing in us using such methods, that creates several huge problems.

 

First of all, it creates huge problems with the Bible. The way he's portrayed in the book is completely at odds with the very idea that that even might be true.

 

He demands worship and praise, yet intentionally makes it appear as if he does not exist? He creates rules and laws we must follow, yet intentionally gives the appearance that he is not there to enforce these rules?

 

No, sorry. It's just poor a rationalization. It's a rather lame attempt to explain away the actual evidence and support beliefs that are contradicted by not only the evidence, but the scripture the beliefs are based on.

 

There's just no way the God of Abraham would act in such a manner. For lack of a better term, he's far too much of an attention whore, he's much too demanding, and far too arrogant to 'make it appear as if he does not exist'.

 

It can be said that those traits are not the negative ones they would be in a mere human because he's God. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that he does clearly have those traits, and it's not just in the OT either.

 

Jesus might be considered humble and meek, but his Dad is clearly not. He doesn't toss about his power the way he does in the OT and the miracles are indeed smaller in scale, but he makes his presence known, and shows off far too much to even consider the idea that he might be trying to hide his existence.

 

Feeding a crowd of thousands, making rays of light and birds descend upon Jesus in front of a crowd, healing the sick, making water into wine at a wedding reception. [interestingly enough, Jesus was acting like he was the Groom at that wedding.], and lets not forget the earthquakes, raising of the dead, blackening out of the sun, and ascension into the heavens.

 

It's really beyond any reasonable measure to even consider. That the God of the Bible would willfully plant false evidence or even not leave any of his presence.

 

Regardless of the fact that there are verses to that effect in the book, it's still completely out of character for the God of Abraham to do such things. Especially how given how he reacts to doubt and disloyalty.

 

Remember what happened to the Isrialites when they made their Golden Calf and doubted him? There are numerous examples of such things in the Bible.

 

I mean seriously? How can anyone think that?

 

The first two Commandments are evidence enough that isn't true. 1. Don't worship anyone but me. 2. Don't you dare make fun of me or use my name when you don't mean it.

 

Does that really sound like the sort of thing a God who is willing to hide his presence or even intentionally plant misleading evidence of his own existence would put at the top of his Top 10 things I'll fuck you up for list?

 

Yes, there are a few scattered [and in all honesty, weak] verses that try to explain away the fact that he appears to not exist, and explain that faith is important.

 

However,as far as I'm concerned, the only reason to put so much stock in 'faith' is a complete lack of proof or evidence.

 

Put simply, putting so much stock in 'faith' alone, and making it the 'most important thing' is a good way to support something that isn't really true. In fact, it's pretty much the only way to do it.

 

Why would God do such a thing? Claiming he's mysterious and beyond our understanding isn't an answer. It's an excuse, and a poor one at that.

 

It makes no sense from any perspective. How can he punish us for not believing, when he intentionally plants evidence that he's not real?

 

How can anyone not be suspicious of such a claim as that? To me, it looks like an obvious cover up for a complete lie. It's a terrible attempt at covering up clear contradictory evidence that the God of the Bible position is not true.

 

I really don't get this claim, or how anyone, even Christians can just buy it. It's a really stupid argument to claim that God 'planted false evidence' or even that he might have 'prevented evidence of his existence from being found'.

 

Why? It makes no sense, claiming he's mysterious and can't be understood isn't good enough to justify it. It's a horrible excuse.

 

If the thing God cares about most, the thing that defines how good or bad a human being I am to God is 'how much I believe in him' or 'how much faith I have', then he's not worthy of worship anyway. -Especially- if he's intentionally withholding or planting false evidence.

 

I could never understand the concept of 'Faith' or even 'Belief' being important to the Lord of the Universe. The very idea is insane.

 

Why would it matter even in the slightest to such a being how much I thought he was real? Why is that a good measure of my character? How could it possibly be a good way to decide if I'm 'saved' or not?

 

This is the biggest weakness of the Christian morality argument. Acts don't matter. Faithful can be forgiven for any wrongdoing. No, you can be as much of a selfish ass as you want, as long as you believe, have faith, and honestly ask for forgiveness.

 

Sorry, it makes no sense, and there's no reason at all to think God, if such a thing does exists, cares in the slightest if I think he's real or not.

 

I doubt he cares much about my behavior, and I don't expect to spend 'eternity' with him when I die regardless of whether he's real or not. I think it rather arrogant to even suggest such a thing might be true, even if God is real.

 

Still, if I'm to be 'judged' I'm left wondering how on Earth Christians came to the conclusion that it will be based on my Faith, and not my acts and deeds?

 

The very idea of being scrutinized and having the worth of my life decided by how much I thought the invisible sky judge was real is just dumb. Such a God is not worthy of worship anyway. I'd rather not spend eternity with a being with such low standards as that.

 

I think there were some great things to ponder over in the responses I got too. Thankyou.

Btw, I am keeping my avatar the same so people can still recognise me as the same Kathlene. I did deconvert, but then went back.

 

Well, you're still welcome in my book. I don't mind arguing points with reasonable Christians. Never have.

 

It's just the idiot 'Bible quotes prove things, evidence is what I claim it is, and you'll burn in hell' variety that bug me.

 

Spiritual philosophy is one thing, but what people often call Christianity is quite another.

 

To quote Bernard Shaw: "Christianity might not be such a bad thing, if anyone ever tried it."

 

I don't think our positions are equally valid. I cannot 'respect' Christianity. I can tolerate it, but respect is a bit too much to ask.

 

I can, however, respect a Christian. There's a difference between not respecting a person, and not respecting a person's ideas or beliefs.

[Shyone]

There's a difference between not respecting a person, and not respecting a person's ideas or beliefs.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his

theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

-- H. L. Mencken

[Kathlene]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

I guess what I was trying to sort in my jumbling thoughts was maybe neither side would so call win the race for evidence, so if you do come to God it is all based entirely on whether you think he is there or not. I know it doesnt make sense. I know its probably not the case either, its just some theory in my own head I thought I would put out there and see what others thought of it.

 

Burden of proof. Remember where it lies?

 

If we're going to say there is some sort of race for evidence, then I'm afraid the 'No God' side wins.

 

Yes, there is no 'evidence that God does not exist'. However, it is important to point out, that there's no evidence that anything does not exist. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

 

Put simply, the two sides are not on equal standing here. Stating 'God exists' is making a claim. Asking for evidence or support of that claim is not.

 

It can easily be pointed out that the immaterial and invisible would appear exactly the same as the non-existent.

 

The two positions are just not equally valid. Negatives cannot be proven.

 

God's existence draws the short straw on that one. It's an unfalsifiable claim with no supportive evidence.

 

I could just as easily claim that invisible fairies make flowers bloom.

 

We both know that isn't likely to be true. However, you could never prove that it isn't true. You could never show that the invisible fairies do not exist.

 

The idea of God is no different.

 

Also, the idea of God intentionally hiding is just a cop out argument.

 

If God willingly tricks us into not believing in us using such methods, that creates several huge problems.

 

First of all, it creates huge problems with the Bible. The way he's portrayed in the book is completely at odds with the very idea that that even might be true.

 

He demands worship and praise, yet intentionally makes it appear as if he does not exist? He creates rules and laws we must follow, yet intentionally gives the appearance that he is not there to enforce these rules?

 

No, sorry. It's just poor a rationalization. It's a rather lame attempt to explain away the actual evidence and support beliefs that are contradicted by not only the evidence, but the scripture the beliefs are based on.

 

There's just no way the God of Abraham would act in such a manner. For lack of a better term, he's far too much of an attention whore, he's much too demanding, and far too arrogant to 'make it appear as if he does not exist'.

 

It can be said that those traits are not the negative ones they would be in a mere human because he's God. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that he does clearly have those traits, and it's not just in the OT either.

 

Jesus might be considered humble and meek, but his Dad is clearly not. He doesn't toss about his power the way he does in the OT and the miracles are indeed smaller in scale, but he makes his presence known, and shows off far too much to even consider the idea that he might be trying to hide his existence.

 

Feeding a crowd of thousands, making rays of light and birds descend upon Jesus in front of a crowd, healing the sick, making water into wine at a wedding reception. [interestingly enough, Jesus was acting like he was the Groom at that wedding.], and lets not forget the earthquakes, raising of the dead, blackening out of the sun, and ascension into the heavens.

 

It's really beyond any reasonable measure to even consider. That the God of the Bible would willfully plant false evidence or even not leave any of his presence.

 

 

Contrabardus, thankyou for your reply. I am curious to know and understand this statement you have made that the God of the bible would willfully plant false evidence. Would you be able to explain what you are talking about for me to have it clarified.

 

I wondered out loud about there being no evidence perhaps on purpose..I have read peoples responses to that idea and am thinking deeply about them. There have been some good points raised.

 

The christian claim is that God is spirit and you can't see him unless you are born of the spirit. I know that sounds wild and out there, and it does. So my observation, was that there is no known natural evidence. I guess its a big ask to ask people to even think about the spiritual world if there is no evidence for it. Just thinking out loud.

[ContraBardus]

Well, I was responding to you, but also generalizing Christianity on the whole a bit as well. Bringing up worst case arguments related to the topic.

 

It's a common creationist argument that God planted fossils and intentionally make the geological, archeological, and pretty much the whole of existence appear to be much older than it really is as a 'test of faith'.

 

For example, he put the stars billions of years away from us, and created the from them already in route to our planet, or that he put the fossils to be dug up as they are in order to confuse the idea of his existence to test the resolve of the faith of his believers.

 

Call it a worst case argument. Still, the idea that he's 'hiding' and intentionally prevented evidence of his presence from being found isn't that much better in my view. It still doesn't make much sense and doesn't fit with the evidence. It also doesn't mesh with whats in the scripture either. I strongly consider it to be a failure on both fronts. Even Christian logic just can't support that it might be the case.

 

Thinking about spirituality is one thing, accepting that it's true just on face value is another.

 

I hold the idea of God, and Spirituality for that matter, up to the same standards of proof and evidence as I would the existence of anything else.

 

I don't think accepting anything on less would be a good thing at all.

 

It's nice and a bit fun to think about spirituality and explore the ideas behind it.

 

However, it's also fun to boot up my Xbox and catch Ghosts with Proton Stream, or shoot Aliens with Plasma weapons.

 

Both those things have more evidence for their existence than real Spirituality. Even as a video game, I can see, hear, and interact with them.

 

Spirituality doesn't even meet that standard of examination.

[Antlerman]

It's nice and a bit fun to think about spirituality and explore the ideas behind it.

 

However, it's also fun to boot up my Xbox and catch Ghosts with Proton Stream, or shoot Aliens with Plasma weapons.

 

Both those things have more evidence for their existence than real Spirituality. Even as a video game, I can see, hear, and interact with them.

 

Spirituality doesn't even meet that standard of examination.

You can see, hear, and interact with a video game and therefore that validates the experience of gaming as real. You won't dispute that. But how is that different from someone seeing, interacting with, and walking away from the experience of religious beliefs with tangible, measurable effects in their lives, and just calling the whole experience and interaction with that spirituality?

 

Is it because you touch the hard-shell case of the game? Would you say that this is evidence that Mario is real, or would you say this is evidence that someone created the character of Mario to express the experience of 'fun' for the sake of entertainment and that the experience of 'fun' is real and the creation of Mario is evidence of that?

 

A religious person may turn to the Bible and say it is evidence of a creator God, and in sense they may be correct, but not in the literalistic sense like saying the hard-shell case of your video game is proof that Mario is a real person. Where they would be correct is in saying that the creation of such sacred texts are expressions of that sense of what is called 'spirituality', and that in that sense they are evidence that spirituality is a tangible, legitimate reality in humans.

 

A different, less charged example would be recognizing that our socially constructed realities become in fact objective realities that directly interact with the material world. Our ideas, our values, our beliefs materialize in the physical world where our tools of science and measurements can examine its effects, even though it can't directly touch it, say as in gravity.

 

The question is not whether spirituality exists or not, but what is spirituality in people's lives? And from there, you can ask its value. Just because dominant groups of pre-adolencent gamers took the mythical world of Mario as evidence of an actual realm of magic mushrooms and beat to death with rocks those who tried to tell them it's about that world in themselves instead of some world 'out there', doesn't now mean that that reality that created the game in the first place doesn't exist.

[dagnarus]

I actually read The Case for Christ when I was a christian because I was excited to see if there was objective proof for what I held dear. It was right after I was having the first inklings of doubt. I found this book to be a completely frustrating and defeating read because it was devoid of any points that would stand up as "proof" and was horribly biased. I'm definately no philosopher but the arguments were so fallacious, even I saw them for what they were. After I read this book, I remember thinking "maybe there's no real evidence or good arguments for christianity because there really is nothing real about this whole thing." This book was so bad it actually helped point me down the road of deconversion.

 

This was actually my reaction when reading my first apologetic. It was shown to me around when I was first converted actually. If only I'd listened to myself then I could have save a whole lot of time.