What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?

[Hierophant]

@aik brought up the subject of what constitutes evidence, and I wanted to start a new thread about this topic to avoid it getting lost within the discussion where it was brought up. According to @aik , he stated that feelings, convictions, or a gut instinct is a valid indicator of what is real. For example, and if I understand him correctly, @aik believes that God is real, and that Christianity is true, because there in his mind and heart, he perceives it to be true. Aik also stated that members here are claiming only science can give us insight and evidence for what is real. I do not believe anyone said this, but I do not think it is a bad inference.

 

The reason why a lot of members here trust in science, or better stated, the scientific method is because it provides an objective means by which we humans can understand our reality. The scientific method is designed as to be self-correcting, i.e., if new evidence is provided that overturns a previously held belief, then beliefs change to accommodate the new data.

 

Now, science is limited in the aspect that is can only investigate our reality, which is called methodological naturalism. This principle is closely related to naturalism, but it is not the same. Naturalism is a philosophy stating only natural forces shape our reality, and omits the possibility of the supernatural. Methodological naturalism does not state that. What methodological naturalism does mean is that humans are only capable of studying the natural world, as we observe it. Science does not have the means or methods to investigate the supernatural, so even if the supernatural realm existed, science could not say anything about it. It is beyond our capability to investigate.

 

I do not want to misrepresent Aik's position, so if I am in error, please let me know, but Aik provided an example I found to be a false analogy. Aik stated that if science is the only means of knowing, then humans should submit themselves to DNS testing to see if their parents, are truly their parents. I am not entirely sure what Aik was driving at, but I believe he was stating that we (people in general) take things on faith as evidence, e.g., we assume those who claim to be our parents are indeed our parents. I would agree that if we really wanted to know, we could use DNA sampling to make sure our parents are indeed our parents. That would be the ultimate evidence to demonstrate such a thing - which merely validates the scientific method opposed to diminishing it.

 

Making some assumptions, people, by and large, do not do this because they do not really feel they need to. Historically speaking, societies are not really known to be child swapping, then lying to the children stating they are really their parents. We know from experience that most parents, are indeed the true parents of children....it does not need to be taken on faith, it is simply the most likely scenario. If someone was unsure of their parentage, perhaps they look nothing like their parents based on ethnicity, morphology, or some other reason that introduces doubt, then they could submit to a DNA test to make sure.

 

Aik stated that our belief our parents are probably our parents are the same as him knowing that God is his father. I simply find that to be false, as stated before. Aik is equivocating humans growing up generally believing those who claim to be their parents as the same type of belief as believing Yahweh is a believer's heavenly father. The primary discrepancy is that we could get a DNA test to make sure, we have no such method to find out if God is our heavenly father.

 

When we rely on feelings or convictions to determine what is true, we might be right sometimes, but it is not a guarantee. Consider the gambler who has a feeling that they are just a couple spins away from hitting the jackpot, then find themselves penniless. The emotions and convictions they are feeling is the same as those believers who think they have found out the truth of the supernatural. I know, I have felt both. I have felt certain something was meant to be, or hope that something would happen, only to be left utterly disappointed. When I was a Christian, I was in the camp of WLC, I was convicted Christianity was true and thought the Holy Spirit was internally verifying this conviction.

 

Coming to conclusions based on faith, emotions, or convictions is inherently unsound. It is not an objective method for discovering what is true about our reality, and that extends to the supernatural. Here is a great example, from Christians themselves. Sir Isaac Newton and Sye Ten Bruggencate both claimed that by special revelation, they new the true nature of Jesus. Newton believed that Jesus was not divine, while Sye Ten did. Both stated they came to the respective conclusions by reading the Bible and special revelation from God. And there is the rub, we have two committed, devout Christians claiming to employ the same method and the same sources, but ultimately coming to different conclusions. Right there, that is my problem. This is not an isolated event, this problem has existed throughout the entirety of Christianity. There are thousands of denominations, all convinced of their particular beliefs based on their interpretation of the Bible, and the claim that the Holy Spirit is illuminating knowledge.

 

Another example is when I was reading different material from various Christian blogs and came across two authors who were discussing a certain theological topic. I forget what the topic was, but it just happened to be the same one, maybe Calvinism, or forgiveness, I am not sure -- but both blogs were discussing the exact same topic. Anyways, both authors of their blogs stated we should use scripture to interpret scripture. In their arguments, these authors came to polar opposite conclusions based on their method of using scripture to interpret scripture, which rules out this being a valid method of determining what the Bible is trying to state, let alone what is real.

 

There is a show called Under the Banner of Heaven I highly recommend. For me, it brought the issue of special revelation to the forefront. In the show, these Mormon brothers get into fundamentalism and begin to think they are receiving special revelations from God, same as was claimed by Joseph Smith. The show highlights that these brothers are just having ad hoc revelations they believe are coming from God, but are just their own personal wants. Others in the show bend the knee because there is no way to validate what they are claiming is coming from God, and they surely do not want to offend God, so they go with it. It points out the flaws with attempting to discover what is real by relying on our convictions, it does not work.

 

Elsewhere, I have stated that I am only willing to believe what the evidence bears out, and that is because I want to know what is real, not what I want or hope to be real. When it comes to belief in any religion, I do not believe in just having faith. It is too easy to believe anything and everything. Nothing, no matter how ridiculous is on the table. I do not trust in emotions or convictions for determining what is true, I have seen those methods fail all the time. I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know of any possible method or test to determine if a God exists. Based on the evidence provided, I find it unlikely. I would have to have direct access to this God to know if he was even real. All philosophical musings claiming a God exists are pithy, and easily demonstrated to be without merit. If anyone was to convince me a God existed, I would need to see a ground up approach. What I mean by that is lets see the tangible, objective evidence for the claim. If it exists, I will absolutely change my mind. I do not accept making a leap of faith, then attempting to buttress that faith with anything and everything that suits the bias. It is intellectually dishonest.

[aik]

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

@aik brought up the subject of what constitutes evidence, and I wanted to start a new thread about this topic to avoid it getting lost within the discussion where it was brought up. According to @aik , he stated that feelings, convictions, or a gut instinct is a valid indicator of what is real. For example, and if I understand him correctly, @aik believes that God is real, and that Christianity is true, because there in his mind and heart, he perceives it to be true. Aik also stated that members here are claiming only science can give us insight and evidence for what is real. I do not believe anyone said this, but I do not think it is a bad inference.

 

The reason why a lot of members here trust in science, or better stated, the scientific method is because it provides an objective means by which we humans can understand our reality. The scientific method is designed as to be self-correcting, i.e., if new evidence is provided that overturns a previously held belief, then beliefs change to accommodate the new data.

 

Now, science is limited in the aspect that is can only investigate our reality, which is called methodological naturalism. This principle is closely related to naturalism, but it is not the same. Naturalism is a philosophy stating only natural forces shape our reality, and omits the possibility of the supernatural. Methodological naturalism does not state that. What methodological naturalism does mean is that humans are only capable of studying the natural world, as we observe it. Science does not have the means or methods to investigate the supernatural, so even if the supernatural realm existed, science could not say anything about it. It is beyond our capability to investigate.

 

I do not want to misrepresent Aik's position, so if I am in error, please let me know, but Aik provided an example I found to be a false analogy. Aik stated that if science is the only means of knowing, then humans should submit themselves to DNS testing to see if their parents, are truly their parents. I am not entirely sure what Aik was driving at, but I believe he was stating that we (people in general) take things on faith as evidence, e.g., we assume those who claim to be our parents are indeed our parents. I would agree that if we really wanted to know, we could use DNA sampling to make sure our parents are indeed our parents. That would be the ultimate evidence to demonstrate such a thing - which merely validates the scientific method opposed to diminishing it.

 

Making some assumptions, people, by and large, do not do this because they do not really feel they need to. Historically speaking, societies are not really known to be child swapping, then lying to the children stating they are really their parents. We know from experience that most parents, are indeed the true parents of children....it does not need to be taken on faith, it is simply the most likely scenario. If someone was unsure of their parentage, perhaps they look nothing like their parents based on ethnicity, morphology, or some other reason that introduces doubt, then they could submit to a DNA test to make sure.

 

Aik stated that our belief our parents are probably our parents are the same as him knowing that God is his father. I simply find that to be false, as stated before. Aik is equivocating humans growing up generally believing those who claim to be their parents as the same type of belief as believing Yahweh is a believer's heavenly father. The primary discrepancy is that we could get a DNA test to make sure, we have no such method to find out if God is our heavenly father.

 

When we rely on feelings or convictions to determine what is true, we might be right sometimes, but it is not a guarantee. Consider the gambler who has a feeling that they are just a couple spins away from hitting the jackpot, then find themselves penniless. The emotions and convictions they are feeling is the same as those believers who think they have found out the truth of the supernatural. I know, I have felt both. I have felt certain something was meant to be, or hope that something would happen, only to be left utterly disappointed. When I was a Christian, I was in the camp of WLC, I was convicted Christianity was true and thought the Holy Spirit was internally verifying this conviction.

 

Coming to conclusions based on faith, emotions, or convictions is inherently unsound. It is not an objective method for discovering what is true about our reality, and that extends to the supernatural. Here is a great example, from Christians themselves. Sir Isaac Newton and Sye Ten Bruggencate both claimed that by special revelation, they new the true nature of Jesus. Newton believed that Jesus was not divine, while Sye Ten did. Both stated they came to the respective conclusions by reading the Bible and special revelation from God. And there is the rub, we have two committed, devout Christians claiming to employ the same method and the same sources, but ultimately coming to different conclusions. Right there, that is my problem. This is not an isolated event, this problem has existed throughout the entirety of Christianity. There are thousands of denominations, all convinced of their particular beliefs based on their interpretation of the Bible, and the claim that the Holy Spirit is illuminating knowledge.

 

Another example is when I was reading different material from various Christian blogs and came across two authors who were discussing a certain theological topic. I forget what the topic was, but it just happened to be the same one, maybe Calvinism, or forgiveness, I am not sure -- but both blogs were discussing the exact same topic. Anyways, both authors of their blogs stated we should use scripture to interpret scripture. In their arguments, these authors came to polar opposite conclusions based on their method of using scripture to interpret scripture, which rules out this being a valid method of determining what the Bible is trying to state, let alone what is real.

 

There is a show called Under the Banner of Heaven I highly recommend. For me, it brought the issue of special revelation to the forefront. In the show, these Mormon brothers get into fundamentalism and begin to think they are receiving special revelations from God, same as was claimed by Joseph Smith. The show highlights that these brothers are just having ad hoc revelations they believe are coming from God, but are just their own personal wants. Others in the show bend the knee because there is no way to validate what they are claiming is coming from God, and they surely do not want to offend God, so they go with it. It points out the flaws with attempting to discover what is real by relying on our convictions, it does not work.

 

Elsewhere, I have stated that I am only willing to believe what the evidence bears out, and that is because I want to know what is real, not what I want or hope to be real. When it comes to belief in any religion, I do not believe in just having faith. It is too easy to believe anything and everything. Nothing, no matter how ridiculous is on the table. I do not trust in emotions or convictions for determining what is true, I have seen those methods fail all the time. I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know of any possible method or test to determine if a God exists. Based on the evidence provided, I find it unlikely. I would have to have direct access to this God to know if he was even real. All philosophical musings claiming a God exists are pithy, and easily demonstrated to be without merit. If anyone was to convince me a God existed, I would need to see a ground up approach. What I mean by that is lets see the tangible, objective evidence for the claim. If it exists, I will absolutely change my mind. I do not accept making a leap of faith, then attempting to buttress that faith with anything and everything that suits the bias. It is intellectually dishonest.

okey, man. I have it finally read. It took a couple of days from me to have it done. lol.

 

Actually, well done. I am going get into it, with all of you my already dear friends. @HierophantTried his best to show accurately what I claimed, though there were some details which did not fit with it, but these are details. I will try my best to analyse your text giving comments to almost every line of it. And to start aur conversation here.

 

Dear friends, the only thing I want you to pay attention is, please notice that generally I am one man, you are many. Of course I love it to have so many people interested in what is true, but I can have not enough time to type much.

 

Please,, have mercy on me.  Let us keep some kind of an order while having these conversations. Not strictly but not rushing out a bulk of messages. But anyway feel free. It is a forum not face-to-face meeting. Otherwise it will take some time for me to answer to all of you. 

 

In my next post I will try to start. 

[TABA]

In the interest of a useful, coherent discussion, I am asking that only the originator of this topic, @Hierophant and our Christian visitor @aik, post in this topic.  Comments on this topic by others should be made in the parallel Peanut Gallery topic that has now been started, and which contains previous comments from other members.

[aik]

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

brought up the subject of what constitutes evidence, and I wanted to start a new thread about this topic to avoid it getting lost within the discussion where it was brought up

Good idea, thank you. My point here will be that in the case of believing God subjective evidence is more important and more convincing and is more accurate, and in general is better than the so-called objective. Saying Objective i mean the one what you guys here love to say, with your definitions of this word. 

 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

he stated that feelings, convictions, or a gut instinct is a valid indicator of what is real

This is where you understood me wrong. When you say that feelings can deceive a man, I am with you. I believe it also. For me the real is at first what the Bible says which is the word of God, and second what i see with my eyes. Why my eyes at second place? Because i trust God more than to my eyes. Because God can show to my eyes what i was not able to see before He showd it. 

 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

because there in his mind and heart, he perceives it to be true

God persuaded me

 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

Aik also stated that members here are claiming only science can give us insight and evidence for what is real. I do not believe anyone said this,

Rules of this are stated that you have to show objective evidences. And while having conversation with some of you i am coming to my conclusion that if you do not have a picture of God made by my hands taken by my smartphone and sent to you as an evidence you will never believe my words. I think that even a picture will not help you here. None asked me a picture. I just represented how i feel about it.

 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

it provides an objective means by which we humans can understand our reality

not always. For example darwinism saying that our ancestors were monkeys is not a scientific claim. There is no objective evidence. There are only some similarities and all other things pulled to fit to this idea. 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

What methodological naturalism does mean is that humans are only capable of studying the natural world, as we observe it. Science does not have the means or methods to investigate the supernatural, so even if the supernatural realm existed, science could not say anything about it. It is beyond our capability to investigate.

That is why in believing God i put my point on evidences which I have from God not from scientists. I completely agree with you here. So let you be opened mind and see not only scientific evidence but also spiritual and subjective ones.

 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

I do not want to misrepresent Aik's position, so if I am in error, please let me know, but Aik provided an example I found to be a false analogy. Aik stated that if science is the only means of knowing, then humans should submit themselves to DNS testing to see if their parents, are truly their parents. I am not entirely sure what Aik was driving at, but I believe he was stating that we (people in general) take things on faith as evidence, e.g., we assume those who claim to be our parents are indeed our parents. I would agree that if we really wanted to know, we could use DNA sampling to make sure our parents are indeed our parents. That would be the ultimate evidence to demonstrate such a thing - which merely validates the scientific method opposed to diminishing it.

I insist on this analogy, because it is not false. We know about our parents not only from scientific sources. And please notice that the faith is not blind. I don't believe in a blind faith. Here we have Birth certificates for example, they say who are our parents, we have their attitude to us accumulated in years it also says to us who are our parents, we have things which they gave to us, it also gives evidence of their attitude to us. So we have out of science evidences which are more important. Why?   Because if I know my father and mother, I know what I had all these years from them, I know how they took care of me all the times, how they bought me to me things i asked for, and many other things, and plus I have a document which says that they are my parents, there are many witnesses of their being my parents. Witnesses and documents support. So after this if I for some reason I do a DNA test I am sure that the DNA test will support my position. If it does not, i think it has some mistake in it. 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

or some other reason that introduces doubt, then they could submit to a DNA test to make sure.

so if someone has doubts in his parents to be true parents, it means that he does not have such support of witnesses, or documents, or their attitude to him. It brings him to a doubt. Think about it in sense of God being our farther. There are christians, I am sure, who do not know that they believe in god which is in their mind, they pictured that god by their own criteria in their mind and think that this is the God of the Bible. But there are christians who are good christians, but they do not know their God. They attend churches for years, read the bible and listen to sermons, but they are ignorant about power of God, essense of God, personality of God, likes of God and fathership of God, and even salvation of God. 

 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

When we rely on feelings or convictions to determine what is true, we might be right sometimes, but it is not a guarantee. Consider the gambler who has a feeling that they are just a couple spins away from hitting the jackpot, then find themselves penniless. The emotions and convictions they are feeling is the same as those believers who think they have found out the truth of the supernatural. I know, I have felt both. I have felt certain something was meant to be, or hope that something would happen, only to be left utterly disappointed.

I completely support this position.

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

When I was a Christian, I was in the camp of WLC, I was convicted Christianity was true and thought the Holy Spirit was internally verifying this conviction.

Maybe you confused your thoughts with what Holy Spirit said. Maybe you were a christian only in your thoughts. It means that very soon you will leave Jesus. 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

Coming to conclusions based on faith, emotions, or convictions is inherently unsound. It is not an objective method for discovering what is true about our reality, and that extends to the supernatural. Here is a great example, from Christians themselves. Sir Isaac Newton and Sye Ten Bruggencate both claimed that by special revelation, they new the true nature of Jesus. Newton believed that Jesus was not divine, while Sye Ten did. Both stated they came to the respective conclusions by reading the Bible and special revelation from God. And there is the rub, we have two committed, devout Christians claiming to employ the same method and the same sources, but ultimately coming to different conclusions. Right there, that is my problem. This is not an isolated event, this problem has existed throughout the entirety of Christianity. There are thousands of denominations, all convinced of their particular beliefs based on their interpretation of the Bible, and the claim that the Holy Spirit is illuminating knowledge.

If one believes in something he can prove it from the Bible for 100%, he can show that the Bible supports his position, and it does not matter what the position is. Such an example we have right here. @DarkBishophere "proved" to us that the Bible teaches us about a flat earth. But I do not know a church teaching such things. Even if JW believe that there is no hell or hades, they point on Bible texts. But they cover with hands other texts of the Bible. Besides that Ahmad Deedat was proving to his people that Bible is teaching about Muhammad to be a true prophet, and that Jesus was not God. Well if one needs to show that the Bible supports his position i think he will have success, even that monkeys were our ancestors or big bang or even that whales brought to the world prophets, or that we have our meal from birds, they give it to us. 

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

Elsewhere, I have stated that I am only willing to believe what the evidence bears out, and that is because I want to know what is real, not what I want or hope to be real.

I believe you are honest

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

When it comes to belief in any religion, I do not believe in just having faith.

I also deny a faith without evidence at all. But I believe that one can first come to God with faith and then to get evidence from Him.

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

I do not trust in emotions or convictions for determining what is true

I support you 100%

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

I would have to have direct access to this God to know if he was even real.

Sure you can have access. But faith is the must here. The Bible says that without faith one cannot please God. It means that if we want to know God without faith and then believe in Him, we will fail. Because God knows that without having faith a man will not be able to live with God.

On 11/29/2022 at 6:39 PM, Hierophant said:

What I mean by that is lets see the tangible, objective evidence for the claim.

If you want to touch spiritual God with your fleshly hands. You will fail. Who put this limits into your brain? you did it. A spirit maybe touched with a spirit. What is objective evidence in your mind i do not know, but i guess the same as i said above. My position is that we have evidences about God, we do. But you have to break the limits of understanding of these evidences. I think you keep in mind some type of scientific report about God's existence. But you said yourself science is not about God's existence. If you are ready to listen to witnesses, to analyze the Bible, and to learn to trust God you will have success. We need to learn to trust God. When Jonah started to trust God after a whale, he saw repentance of Ninevites, but before the whale he could not believe it. So the repentance of the Ninevites are the evidence of truthfulness of God's words. Though God seemed deceiving Jonah at first. If we do not learn to have faith toward God, we will never have success in knowing God. The choice is yours.

 

Are you ready to go with it, my friend?

[Hierophant]

@aikCould you explain, as best as you can, the evidence you are receiving from God? Is it a feeling, a sense of knowing, etc.?

[aik]

23 hours ago, Hierophant said:

@aikCould you explain, as best as you can, the evidence you are receiving from God? Is it a feeling, a sense of knowing, etc.?

The best evidence I ever had from God is Jesus Christ, his birth, his life, his crucifixion, his resurrection, his manifestation to apostles, his Holy Spirit to the church and believers. It is all about Jesus Christ. If we want to make it narrow, the core is crucifixion and ressurrection. This is the best evidence that mankind ever had. 

[Hierophant]

And the evidence for the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus you received from the Bible, correct?

[aik]

7 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

And the evidence for the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus you served from the Bible, correct?

Let us change the word. I feel it hurts you. Maybe i am wrong. 

 

From the letters and writings of the witnesses or desciples of the witnesses.

[Hierophant]

11 minutes ago, aik said:

Let us change the word. I feel it hurts you. Maybe i am wrong. 

 

From the letters and writings of the witnesses or desciples of the witnesses.

 

@aikbelieve me, I am not hurt. You would have to make extraordinary effort to hurt my feelings. The letters and writings you referenced are from the Bible, correct?

[aik]

19 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

@aikbelieve me, I am not hurt. You would have to make extraordinary effort to hurt my feelings. The letters and writings you referenced are from the Bible, correct?

correct. it is the Bible.

[Hierophant]

May I ask, what made you decide that the Bible was authoritative, that is, why did you come to believe that it is an accurate account of the past?

[aik]

15 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

May I ask, what made you decide that the Bible was authoritative, that is, why did you come to believe that it is an accurate account of the past?

The Bible is not an accurate account of the past. It is an accurate living word of God. I mean that it is not a history study book my friend. It is the written revelation of God's truth and salvation. 

[aik]

Just now, aik said:

The Bible is not an accurate account of the past. It is an accurate living word of God. I mean that it is not a history study book my friend. It is the written revelation of God's truth and salvation. 

But of course there is some historical account there in the Bible. and we read it. 

[Hierophant]

12 minutes ago, aik said:

The Bible is not an accurate account of the past. It is an accurate living word of God. I mean that it is not a history study book my friend. It is the written revelation of God's truth and salvation. 

 

Could you explain this more, please? When I say past, I am not stating the Bible accounts for everything that happened in human history, but that the stories in it, such as creation, Garden of Eden, Noah's flood, stories written by the major and minor prophets, Jesus' ministry, etc. actually happened in world history.

[aik]

12 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 

Could you explain this more, please? When I say past, I am not stating the Bible accounts for everything that happened in human history, but that the stories in it, such as creation, Garden of Eden, Noah's flood, stories written by the major and minor prophets, Jesus' ministry, etc. actually happened in world history.

Well you are real. 

 

Years ago I read articles about archeological findings of the dead sea scrolls. Read about critical analysis of the found scriptures. Basically they paid much attention to the book of isaiah . though we can find some insignificant discrepancies, but anyway they are not enough to say that the book was altered. 

 

Several months ago I read the book of Josh McDowell 'More than a carpenter'. It seemed to me quite analytical. He analyses truthfulness of Jesus from various prospectives. And upon the combination of the given arguments we can be sure about historical authenticity of Jesus' personality and being. In his book he refers to William albright's works. So yesterday after your question I started to look what he did find there in Palestine and egypt. It becomes very interesting. Frankly speaking I did not know about it in details, but there it is shown how the for example traced the path of Israel while they were running from pharaoh. They found places mentiond in bible, and they explored geshem. Well it is interesting. And I am planning to continue. 

 

But of course I saw critics of some scientists. But I am pretty sure about there prejudice, I have just told to DB. Because when you read there article you can see how they hate the bible from the very start. It makes me not to trust them. Though I allow that Albright also had some prejudice, knowing that he was a Christian believer. So if you tell me to whom you believe more, I will say to a Christian, because he has a fear of God. 

 

But anyway, it is only intersting. They are proofs of biblical issues. But my faith in no way is based upon those proofs. I am not believing the bible because of having scientific proofs of its authenticity. But obviously they are. 

[Hierophant]

It's definitely possible some scientists out there do frown upon the Bible. Everyone has a bias of some kind, and ideally, the scientific method is designed to minimize biases as much as possible. Rigorous testing and the peer review process does a good job of keeping the data as objective as possible. 

 

I understand you position Aik, I used to think like you do. I want to share with you what I thought was the first "chink in the armor" when it came to the reliability of the Bible. Chink in the armor is a saying we use when we find a weakness in something. Matthew 27 has a bunch of dead saints coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem.  The Gospel of Matthew is the only written record anywhere stating this happened, and I just cannot believe that is true. Not even the other gospel writers mention this.

 

Really think about this. How could something like this happen, and nobody else writes about it? It would be one of the most jaw dropping things to happen in history, and no Jewish, Roman, nor other gospel writers feel the need to mention it. I simply cannot choke that down. Dr. Licona, a Christian scholar made a comment that he doesn't believe that is historical and the Christian community went nuts because of it. I believe he lost his job saying that. And that's why I am skeptical of Christian scholars, their jobs rely on them to adhere to statements of faith, which does not mean following the evidence.

[aik]

7 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

Matthew 27 has a bunch of dead saints coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem.  The Gospel of Matthew is the only written record anywhere stating this happened, and I just cannot believe that is true. Not even the other gospel writers mention this.

Dear friend, I thought you do not believe the Bible is true at all. If so, why are you mentioning just only one passage here? I can show you numerous passages of the Bible which are outstanding, out of our thinking limitations. And a skeptic will never be able to believe in it, until he allows that the human is limited in his understanding of God, because God created the human. So what is the reason mentioning only one passage here? For example we have John chapter 13, where Jesus wash the feet of his desciples. Only in one place it is mentioned in the whole Bible. The unbeliever says, I do not believe, even though it is not a miracle, the believer says I do. So what's the point?

 

13 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

How could something like this happen, and nobody else writes about it?

It is written by the witness who decided to tell others about the power of God. I don't think that everyone writes or should write everything  they see.  Some do, other do not. Maybe there were others also who somehow wrote about it, but we lost. Actually we lost many christian letters also as I heard. But what we have is collected in the Bible. 

Haven't you ever asked to yourself how did Peter and John and Jacob recognized Elijah and Moses on the mount where Jesus was changed? If Moses lived about 1500 years before and Elijah 800 or about? How did they recognized them? Well maybe Jesus told them, maybe by revelation, I do not know. But it is not a problem for me as a believer. 

 

Today not a single monkey transforms into a human being, but it is not the reason why i am so skeptical of Darwinism. Darwinism is full of presumptions and assumptions and hypothesis, and there were no witnesses, no witnesses. And i would not mind it if somebody somewhere did not call it a Science. If it is a science, what do scientist want from the Bible? The Bible never claimed to be scientific, the Bible is spiritual and Godly. Do you understand the difference? Jesus has many witnesses of his words and deeds. 

 

If you mention this passage of Matthew 27 as historically untrue, then you can say that every miracle done by Jesus or let us say by God in the history is historically untrue if we use such criteria. Am I right? 

 

So Jesus does not call you to have evidences and then follow him for salvation. Jesus says whoever believeth in me he will be saved. Believes that He is the source of life, which is above our ability of thinking. If God was understandable for us by our thinking then He could not be God, but the one whom we created by our thinking. Do you agree with me? 

 

How can a living come out of a mortal? How can life come out of the stone? Is it possible? 

[aik]

And please, answer this question. For example there is a miracle done by Jesus, multiplying of bread, and this miracle is mentioned in all four gospels. It means that at least four people witness about it. Do you believe it is true? 

[Hierophant]

4 hours ago, aik said:

And please, answer this question. For example there is a miracle done by Jesus, multiplying of bread, and this miracle is mentioned in all four gospels. It means that at least four people witness about it. Do you believe it is true? 

 

No, I do not believe it is true because the Bible was not written by eye witnesses. The letters themselves never indicate who wrote them, the Gospel letters were assigned names by the early church. Using analysis, scholars do not believe they are eye witnesses either based on how they are written; moreover, the original titles (that is, the titles the church made up) were "The Gospel According to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John." According to does not mean eye witness, it can mean a variety of things, completely fabricated, oral tradition, or other options.

 

I saw in the other thread that you said your faith is based merely on faith, not evidence, so really there is no point in this thread. You will not and cannot accept evidence. Your only argument is for why you believe is the same reason that Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus, Buddhist, and the followers of every other 5000 religions believe their religion is the one true religion. You can say all you want that other people are mistaken, or under the grasp of the devil, but they would say the same thing as you. You have no means by which to validate your position.

 

I am going to make things really simple for you, because I am hoping you can at least understand why your approach is flawed. I am not going to hold my breath, but I am going to try anyway.

 

Let me ask you, what is the point of Christianity? Broadly speaking, what are believers supposed to get out of it. What is the main goal of Christianity?

[aik]

5 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

According to does not mean eye witness, it can mean a variety of things, completely fabricated, oral tradition, or other options.

It cannot. You are leading us into false interpretation.

 

according to
preposition
US  /əˈkɔːr.dɪŋ ˌtuː/ UK  /əˈkɔː.dɪŋ ˌtuː/
according to preposition (OPINION)
 
B1
as stated by:
According to Sarah they're not getting on very well at the moment.
According to our records you owe us $130.

 

Pay attention to the bold text. 

 

7 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

in the other thread that you said your faith is based merely on faith, not evidence, so really there is no point in this thread.

not correct. My faith is not based on what you call objective evidence. Though they can be found in the world. But what I say, my faith is based on an evidence which is different. We have a reason to continue, because I want to show you here that it is useless for you to require material evidence from God to believe in Him, because the very purpose of God and the reason of His actions is to rise the faith in us without which nobody will enter into God's presence. The faith is a motivator, and upon the faith you will have evidences. For sure. So I want to say that it is not necessary to use intellectual and material achievements to get God. You can use them for their correct purpose. But let God answer for which purpose He created you and for which purpose you live on the earth. What do scientists say about the purpose of life of a human being? What can they say about reasons of life? I think we have many other questions here to address to scientists. and let us see if they are able to answer. 

 

16 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

I am going to make things really simple for you,

I am not burdened with complications of matters, whatever. I know in whom I believe. I only wish you to know also.

 

17 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

What is the main goal of Christianity?

For me it is to have the way of thinking of Jesus Christ. I use such simple words only for you, as a believer in materialistic world. 

 

Are you ready to enter with me into examination of scientific issues for life? 

[Hierophant]

Thinking of Jesus Christ? What do you mean by that?

 

Beyond that though, what is the reward for believing in Christianity? What grand reward do you expect?

 

You are right about the word according, it can mean what you say. But again, the Gospels are not eye witness testimonies, nor do they claim to be, so I don't think your preferred definition is applicable here.

[aik]

18 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

You are right about the word according, it can mean what you say. But again, the Gospels are not eye witness testimonies, nor do they claim to be, so I don't think your preferred definition is applicable here.

Also the Epistle to the Hebrew is not of Paul's maybe. But the lack of information in no way Discounts the spirit of the scripture. 

 

18 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

Thinking of Jesus Christ? What do you mean by that?

The way of thinking that Jesus has. 

 

18 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

Beyond that though, what is the reward for believing in Christianity? What grand reward do you expect?

Even if God does not reward me I stay with Him. He has already granted me salvation from my sins and forgiveness. I also have communion with Him, and He gave me power to come to His presence and to enjoy it. One second being with my Saviour I will not exchange to many years of life without him. So with Him I have everything I really need in this life. 

 

What has objective evidence given to you, my firend? 

[Hierophant]

33 minutes ago, aik said:

Also the Epistle to the Hebrew is not of Paul's maybe. But the lack of information in no way Discounts the spirit of the scripture. 

 

The way of thinking that Jesus has. 

 

Even if God does not reward me I stay with Him. He has already granted me salvation from my sins and forgiveness. I also have communion with Him, and He gave me power to come to His presence and to enjoy it. One second being with my Saviour I will not exchange to many years of life without him. So with Him I have everything I really need in this life. 

 

What has objective evidence given to you, my firend? 

 

I was looking for heaven versus going to hell. That is the ultimate goal of Christianity, right? Christians create the problem by stating that people are an enemy of God and heading for Hell, then provide a solution by offering Jesus.

 

To answer your question, objective evidence has provided me with knowledge and peace of mind, that I did not have while I was a Christian. 

[TABA]

This thread is currently for a one-on-one debate between Christian @aik and Ex-Christian @Hierophant.  

Comments from others have been moved to the parallel Peanut Gallery thread for this topic.

 

[aik]

15 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 

I was looking for heaven versus going to hell. That is the ultimate goal of Christianity, right? Christians create the problem by stating that people are an enemy of God and heading for Hell, then provide a solution by offering Jesus.

 

To answer your question, objective evidence has provided me with knowledge and peace of mind, that I did not have while I was a Christian. 

Hello,

 

Read me carefully, please. If you were running from hell all the time while you were a christian, then I am telling you like to my brother, with love, you never knew what the grace was. If you had no knowledge of grace then you had no knowledge of who Jesus Christ was. Let me bring you an example, my friend.

 

Imagine you have a bag on your shoulders of 10 kilos weight. And you carry it every day. And one man approaches to you and offers to take his bag of 100 kgs. and he promises that you will be happy, you will have a good life when you become old. And you take it, and try to carry 110 kg bag every day. I imagine how heavy it becomes for you when have to move and go somewhere. It will smash you on the floor one day. Of course if you are a smart guy, you would give him back his 100 kg and say "let me have my own please, and I will be happy with it". I would do so for example. Why do I have to carry such a huge burden for having something in the future. Why do you have to? Right? 

 

So 10kg is the burden of your sins. 100 kgs is the burden of religious rules, laws, obligations and so on. Nobody is able to carry it, and nobody will love such saviour in his life. 

 

But the Jesus teaches us: 

²⁸ Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.Matthew 11:28-30
 

Jesus' yoke is easy and his burden is light. So based only upon these verses I can say as follows: it does not matter what kind of burden you carry, whether it is a burden of sin, a burden of obligations, a burden of sufferings, whatever, if the burden is heavy then it's not Jesus' burden. Anyway, because His burden is light. 

 

If it was your case, then it is obviouse and i understand why you left such a faith. I would do the same. 

 

So the grace is another thing. The grace came with Jesus. He not only refrains to give you 100 kg, but also takes your 10 kg - a burden of your sins. And even after that gives more. But i want to make my point on it now. Is it familiar to you if you recollect your christian life? 

 

Paul says:

²¹ For to me to live is  Christ, and to die is  gain. Philippians 1:21
 

Haven't you ever thought, how could Paul say such a thing? The grace makes him to have it. 

 

So let me answer your questions now:

15 hours ago, Hierophant said:

I was looking for heaven versus going to hell. That is the ultimate goal of Christianity, right?

No, it is just a start of salvation path. 

 

15 hours ago, Hierophant said:

Christians create the problem 

Christian do not make a problem. The problem lives in you, if you have ever done wrong things in your life. The problem is the sin in you, because of which you do wrong things sometimes, which even you did not want to do. The sin is the problem.

 

15 hours ago, Hierophant said:

by stating that people are an enemy of God

Initially the Bible states that if one lives in sin, and loves it, he is enemy to God. Because God is holy, and we do not love holiness but love sin. 

15 hours ago, Hierophant said:

and heading for Hell

Your sin is leading you to hell upon your own choice. Because you do not want to leave that sin, you do not want to distroy power of sin in your life, this is your choice. Is there anyone in the world who holds your hands and does nnot let you to follow Jesus without your sins? I think nobody holds you besides yourself. It is your choice to stay in sin or to have freedom by Jesus.

 

Even I say more. If someone is a christian and attends church, prays, reads the Bible, visits the needy persons but his heart is not happy with Jesus but his heart is looking outside into the joy of the world and he is so sad because God has cut him off those joyful things which he had in the world, then I say for 100% such m an does not have grace, and does not Know Jesus. He will leave the faith very soon.

 

Do you understand what I mean my friend? The Bible teaches us about grace and rejoice with Jesus, not running away from hell. Hell if for satan and his angels. A man was created and settled into the Garden which was called Edem. The choice of a man makes him to be perished in sins. Also the choice of a man makes him to have life with Jesus.

 

If you say that yoiu do not have sad feeling because of sinful acts you do in your life, then you lie to yourself. You think whther it is smart or not, is it proper for you or not. You choose your way my dear friend.

 

If you have questions, please feel free to do it.