Christian Evidence

[PeterJ]

I think you hit the nail on the head with "we have not defined God" and when you say "interpreted as Pontius does". Doesn't that highlight the highly subjective nature of it all? That's why I can confidently say I am a hard atheist and still claim to have given the "god hypothesis" a fair chance. If you give the existence of god a hard unbiased, objective analysis of any kind, be it experimental, logic, or whatever; it will fail consistently.

 

Normally the hypothesis is there to be tested, not to be believed or disbelieved. It needs to be testable, of course, but first we would have to define what it is we plan to test. I'm sure I'd have no evidence for what you would define as God, and would have to agree that there probably isn't any. There's some evidence for mine. A better argument to have, maybe, than whether evidence for God exists, is whether it is possible to define Him is a manner that would allow us to agree on what on earth we are talking about.

 

I honestly don't understand peoples' intellectual attachment to the existence of a god.

I do understand it, even though I am not one of them. God is very difficult not to believe in, whether we like it or not. It takes as much courage to entertain the possibility of His existence as it does His non-existence.

 

Even though I used to be a Christian myself. It is certainly a powerful notion once it has been swallowed. I think people have a tendency to compartmentalize their thoughts between different subjects. This is unnecessary. It is my opinion that if one applies the way he thinks about unicorns or vampires to god he will certainly find the idea of the existence of a sentient god of any type to be unlikely or ridiculous.

I'm sure you don't think the issues are that simple.

 

Anyway, while there may be no evidence for a God there may still be some for Christianity, in its earliest form.

[Moontanman]

Normally the hypothesis is there to be tested, not to be believed or disbelieved. It needs to be testable, of course, but first we would have to define what it is we plan to test. I'm sure I'd have no evidence for what you would define as God, and would have to agree that there probably isn't any. There's some evidence for mine. A better argument to have, maybe, than whether evidence for God exists, is whether it is possible to define Him is a manner that would allow us to agree on what on earth we are talking about.

 

 

I do understand it, even though I am not one of them. God is very difficult not to believe in, whether we like it or not. It takes as much courage to entertain the possibility of His existence as it does His non-existence.

 

 

I'm sure you don't think the issues are that simple.

 

Anyway, while there may be no evidence for a God there may still be some for Christianity, in its earliest form.

 

I'd like to see how you separate Christianity from god...

[ajb]

There is evidence for Christianity but not everyone would see it as such.

 

There is plenty of evidence that Christianity exists. For example there is a church near me.

[Moontanman]

There is plenty of evidence that Christianity exists. For example there is a church near me.

 

 

Where I live there has to be 30 churches within just a few miles of me.

[PeterJ]

I'd like to see how you separate Christianity from god...

I'm not going to try here, it would be madness, but there's plenty of literature.

[iNow]

And yet you cite none of it nor offer any relevant passages. Yep... That's enough for me. I'm convinced of the merit of your position now.

[rigney]

And yet you cite none of it nor offer any relevant passages. Yep... That's enough for me. I'm convinced of the merit of your position now.

Don't feel so perplexed at your findings. I'm no religious dunce by any stretch, but neither am I a fuk--in' scientific "know it all" idiot either. Perhaps this section of the forum doesn't belong, but it's here and if someone wants to profess their faith and you beat them like a rented mule, for shame! My pity goes out to the aggressor because of their regimented scientific beliefs, and the good ass kicking they deserve for being so obstinate. Some of you are quite proficiant in the scientific world, but many of you only have enough knowledge to be a pompous ass. Edited February 19, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Don't feel so perplexed at your findings. I'm no religious dunce by any stretch, but neither am I a fuk--in' scientific "know it all" idiot either.

Surely you jest! This would never have been made obvious by the content of your posts. I am so glad you've clarified this for us and cleared us of our misconceptions.

 

if someone wants to profess their faith and you beat them like a rented mule, for shame!

Faith is not good enough for you to accept the differing religious beliefs of others, so why should it be good enough for a nonbeliever to accept yours? Faith is not good enough for you to accept that there is an invisible dragon living in your garage, nor is faith good enough for you to accept that there is a tiny purple unicorn inside your refrigerator.

 

Faith can be placed in anything and has zero bearing on either the merit, accuracy, or truth of anything whatsoever. You can have faith that shooting yourself in the face will have no ill effects. That doesn't mean it's true.

 

Yes, news flash, jackass... this is a science forum, and faith is not only rejected, but mocked. If you use faith and expect to be taken seriously, this means that perhaps you're in the wrong place.

 

My pity goes out to the aggressor because of their regimented scientific beliefs, and the good ass kicking they deserve for being so obstinate.

Yes... Of course... You place your pity on those who value reason and rationality and evidence. Of course... In your mind, those are the ones deserving of pity. How quaint. You then follow it up with a recommendation for violence against these people. Super argument you've just made there, champ. You're growing your credibility with every post. Keep up the good work.

 

Some of you are quite proficiant in the scientific world, but many of you only have enough knowledge to be a pompous ass.

How can one only have enough knowledge to be a pompous ass AND be quite proficient in the scientific world? The two seem mutually exclusive.

[Amateur -1]

Hello. Here I want to hear all the evidence that the Christians have. If you have evidence, please do this.

 

Evidence:

some evidence

some evidence

some evidence

 

Note that "Evidence" is size 4, and "some evidence" is size 3.

 

 

When it comes to science and the Bible all that I have come pair are the first few lines of the bible and no further.

 

For me science is the study of God's creation and the rest of the Bible are stories of a Jewish Tribe's and their concepts.

 

 

And God said let there be light and let the light ferment.

 

So every particle that is collided in the scientist's experiments produces a W or Z High Energy Photons and then theses Photon "Referment back into Particles."

 

 

 

 

 

So all particles / Mass are Fermented Photons / light.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Amateur -1

[John Cuthber]

"And God said let there be light and let the light ferment."

No He didn't.

[PeterJ]

And yet you cite none of it nor offer any relevant passages. Yep... That's enough for me. I'm convinced of the merit of your position now.

I already cited some. And no, I'm not so daft as to try and have a full discussion of religion here. It's more fun to attack what whatever we happen to believe it is.

[John Cuthber]

I already cited some.

Where?

[PeterJ]

I mentioned Freke and Gandy's book, and Armstrong and Pagels. A good intro would Keith Ward, 'God: A Guide for the Perplexed', which contrasts the common modern notion of the Christian God its far more subtle original. Islam is not immediately relevant, I suppose, but I'll mention the essay I have here by one Islamic mystic arguing that 'Al-Lah' is not a god. It's online so I'll try to find a link.

 

The small point I was making is that evidence for Christianity is not necessarily evidence for God.

[doG]

I'd like to see how you separate Christianity from god...

Thomas Jefferson did and many of those that follow his extraction, The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth, are referred to as Jeffersonian Christians even though many of them are atheist.

Edited February 19, 2012 by doG

[ajb]

The small point I was making is that evidence for Christianity is not necessarily evidence for God.

 

What do you mean by evidence for Christianity?

 

Christianity has as history, it has shaped much of the political and judicial systems of the West. One cannot deny how important Christianity has been in shaping what we are today.

 

That does not in any way validate Christianity as "the true religion" nor does it provide evidence of a God.

 

So, what do you mean by evidence and of what exactly? The historical existence of Jesus, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection and so on?

[iNow]

I mentioned Freke and Gandy's book, and Armstrong and Pagels. A good intro would Keith Ward, 'God: A Guide for the Perplexed', which contrasts the common modern notion of the Christian God its far more subtle original. Islam is not immediately relevant, I suppose, but I'll mention the essay I have here by one Islamic mystic arguing that 'Al-Lah' is not a god. It's online so I'll try to find a link.

I would be more interested in seeing their references than their books, and lining those up specifically to individual claims being made. You see, any damned person can write any damned thing they want into any damned book. That does not mean it's evidence of any damned thing. This is the same reason we acknowledge that Harry Potter is NOT evidence of wizards and magic.

 

 

 

The small point I was making is that evidence for Christianity is not necessarily evidence for God.

I agree, but I also echo ajb's sentiment, one that's already been echoed by others yet remains unaddressed. What does "evidence for christianity" even mean? What specific claims?

 

We don't need evidence that christianity exists. You see... We've got that already. I presume you're referring to some specific teachings, right?

 

If so, I'd like to first see evidence of a virgin birth in homosapiens, the coming back to life of someone that is actually and without question dead, perhaps something regarding evidence for the afterlife, more specifically heaven and hell, would be helpful in this regard, too. If you're able to offer evidence of those, let's turn next to evaluating the whole turning of water into wine bit. I have some friends who'd like to learn that trick.

 

Finally, maybe we could close out by you showing us how a woman can be made of a rib.

Edited February 19, 2012 by iNow

[immortal]

You missed the trick of walking on water and there is no reason why those things are impossible in reality, I basically don't think that those ancient goat herders were in the age of darkness, infact they might have had a very simple model of the world which helps humans to achieve those things, those miracles don't rely on magic, its not magic, there is rationality behind it and if such a model is true then there is nothing in reality which prevents us from reproducing those things and in the absence of evidence your intolerance towards such beliefs is quite understandable and its fair enough.

[iNow]

there is no reason why those things are impossible in reality <...> those miracles don't rely on magic, its not magic, there is rationality behind it <...> there is nothing in reality which prevents us from reproducing those things

Let's start with virgin birth.

[Moontanman]

Let's start with virgin birth.

 

 

Back in those days, the claim couldn't really be checked up on, she was already with child, her husband to be loved her so much he believed anything she said. So he justified it by believing her claims, I doubt anyone examined her to make "sure" she had an intact hymen.

 

That is probably the easiest thing to fake in the world...

[iNow]

Agreed. However, I'm not looking for evidence that it can be faked. I'm requesting evidence that it's possible at all.

[Moontanman]

Agreed. However, I'm not looking for evidence that it can be faked. I'm requesting evidence that it's possible at all.

 

 

It's not possible, mammals cannot reproduce naturally using parthenogenesis. (it's magic... you know... never believe it's not so... )

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

 

Mammals

There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild. Parthenogenetic progeny of mammals would have two X chromosomes, and would therefore be female.

In 1936, Gregory Goodwin Pincus reported successfully inducing parthenogenesis in a rabbit.[47] In April 2004, scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture used parthenogenesis successfully to create a fatherless mouse. Using gene targeting, they were able to manipulate two imprinted loci H19/IGF2 and DLK1/MEG3 to produce bi-maternal mice at high frequency[48] and subsequently show that fatherless mice have enhanced longevity.[49]

Induced parthenogenesis in mice and monkeys often results in abnormal development. This is because mammals have imprinted genetic regions, where either the maternal or the paternal chromosome is inactivated in the offspring in order for development to proceed normally. A mammal created by parthenogenesis would have double doses of maternally imprinted genes and lack paternally imprinted genes, leading to developmental abnormalities. It has been suggested[50] that defects in placental folding or interdigitation are one cause of swine parthenote abortive development. As a consequence, research on human parthenogenesis is focused on the production of embryonic stem cells for use in medical treatment, not as a reproductive strategy.

 

As indicated above it can be done by artificial means but it doesn't result in viable embryos.

 

Humans

On June 26, 2007, International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCC), a California-based stem cell research company, announced that their lead scientist, Dr. Elena Revazova, and her research team were the first to intentionally create human stem cells from unfertilized human eggs using parthenogenesis. The process may offer a way for creating stem cells that are genetically matched to a particular woman for the treatment of degenerative diseases that might affect her. In December 2007, Dr. Revazova and ISCC published an article[52] illustrating a breakthrough in the use of parthenogenesis to produce human stem cells that are homozygous in the HLA region of DNA. These stem cells are called HLA homozygous parthenogenetic human stem cells (hpSC-Hhom) and have unique characteristics that would allow derivatives of these cells to be implanted into millions of people without immune rejection.[53] With proper selection of oocyte donors according to HLA haplotype, it is possible to generate a bank of cell lines whose tissue derivatives, collectively, could be MHC-matched with a significant number of individuals within the human population.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

Agreed. However, I'm not looking for evidence that it can be faked. I'm requesting evidence that it's possible at all.

Well, it's possible for sperm to make it past an intact hymen, making pregnancy without intercourse possible, if not very probable. The question becomes "Is a woman a virgin if she allows a man to ejaculate into her vaginal opening without full penetration or breaking of the hymen?"

 

There's probably no shortage of men who's excitement peaks just as they reach the gates.

[ydoaPs]

Well, it's possible for sperm to make it past an intact hymen, making pregnancy without intercourse possible, if not very probable. The question becomes "Is a woman a virgin if she allows a man to ejaculate into her vaginal opening without full penetration or breaking of the hymen?"

 

There's probably no shortage of men who's excitement peaks just as they reach the gates.

 

Also, the lack of hymen doesn't necessitate virginity. They can be torn through sports, exercise, etc.

[PeterJ]

I would be more interested in seeing their references than their books, and lining those up specifically to individual claims being made. You see, any damned person can write any damned thing they want into any damned book. That does not mean it's evidence of any damned thing. This is the same reason we acknowledge that Harry Potter is NOT evidence of wizards and magic.

Armstrong and Pagels have all that you might require. Not so sure about Freke and Gandy. But this is four out thousands.

 

I agree, but I also echo ajb's sentiment, one that's already been echoed by others yet remains unaddressed. What does "evidence for christianity" even mean? What specific claims?

Well, here's the thing. Whether there is any evidence will depend on what sort of interpretation we place on the scriptures. I'm happy to provide evidence for my interpretation. It would not be my interpretation if there were no evidence for it. But this would be an interpretation that brings Jesus into line with Lao tsu and the Buddha, Mohammed and the Upanishads. It is the interpretation that Schroedinger places on Christian teachings, and for which his publisher refused to publish one of his books on grounds of heresy.

 

If so, I'd like to first see evidence of a virgin birth in homosapiens the coming back to life of someone that is actually and without question dead, perhaps something regarding evidence for the afterlife, more specifically heaven and hell, would be helpful in this regard, too. If you're able to offer evidence of those, let's turn next to evaluating the whole turning of water into wine bit. I have some friends who'd like to learn that trick.

I don't get the water into wine thing either. Mary, or course, was never recorded as being a virgin in the sense you mean it. We've come to think of her as one, but 'virgin' is not a good translation. Making water into wine and people rise from the dead are conjuring tricks anyway. If they never happened it would make no difference to anything.

 

Finally, maybe we could close out by you showing us how a woman can be made of a rib.

I think you need to do religion a little more justice than this if you want to get to the bottom of it. I suppose, knowing human nature, that there are people who believe that Eve was quite literally created from Adam's rib, but it can't be many.

 

Thomas Jefferson did and many of those that follow his extraction, The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth, are referred to as Jeffersonian Christians even though many of them are atheist.

Really? I should have known this already but it's news to me. Thanks for the link doG, I'll check it out later.

[Moontanman]

Armstrong and Pagels have all that you might require. Not so sure about Freke and Gandy. But this is four out thousands.

 

 

Well, here's the thing. Whether there is any evidence will depend on what sort of interpretation we place on the scriptures. I'm happy to provide evidence for my interpretation. It would not be my interpretation if there were no evidence for it. But this would be an interpretation that brings Jesus into line with Lao tsu and the Buddha, Mohammed and the Upanishads. It is the interpretation that Schroedinger places on Christian teachings, and for which his publisher refused to publish one of his books on grounds of heresy.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that interpretation equals evidence, that is called apologetics, it has noting to do with evidence of anything except the desire to twist scripture to fit reality when it really doesn't.

 

 

I don't get the water into wine thing either. Mary, or course, was never recorded as being a virgin in the sense you mean it. We've come to think of her as one, but 'virgin' is not a good translation. Making water into wine and people rise from the dead are conjuring tricks anyway. If they never happened it would make no difference to anything.

 

It might hake a difference to Christians since their religion is indeed based in these things and the truth of their holy book depends on these things being true. But I have to agree that the idea of Mary being a virgin is debatable, the original meaning that was implied was closer to young girl than actually being a virgin. Although at the time not being a virgin on your wedding night was punishable by death. This is not true if the woman was a widow but in this case i don't think anyone is trying to say Mary was a widow.

 

 

I think you need to do religion a little more justice than this if you want to get to the bottom of it. I suppose, knowing human nature, that there are people who believe that Eve was quite literally created from Adam's rib, but it can't be many.

 

You are seriously mistaken on this, in the US something like 60% of just Christians believe in the inerrant word of the bible. They are often called creationists, there are also Islamic fundamentalists and Jewish fundamentalists as well, they all believe that Genesis is absolutely true word for word. There are also a great many Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, creationists as well but the myths surrounding them are different and serve a different god or pantheon of gods.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Moontanman