What Evidence Could Possibly Convince People God Walked the Earth?
Christian, just think one time for yourself without leaning on what your mother told you on her knees. What would you think if someone told you he met a person who was God incarnate in India last week? What would it take to convince you of his testimony? Let's say he was a personal friend of yours whom you knew would never lie. Pause and think about this and it's clear YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE HIM!
Now, what we find about Jesus is the same kind of testimony but this time we don't know anyone who claims to have met him. It's all written down in the ancient past. We don't know the authors nor can we adequately judge their honesty (honest writing can be faked).
But we do know these authors lived in an era where people believed demigods walked the earth and they believed there were many sons of gods who had virgin births.
So what kind of evidence could possibly lead you to think some man in the first century was an incarnate son of God? Since there can be none you don't believe because of the evidence! You believe because you were raised to believe, and now you defend what you prefer to be true.
Now, what we find about Jesus is the same kind of testimony but this time we don't know anyone who claims to have met him. It's all written down in the ancient past. We don't know the authors nor can we adequately judge their honesty (honest writing can be faked).
But we do know these authors lived in an era where people believed demigods walked the earth and they believed there were many sons of gods who had virgin births.
So what kind of evidence could possibly lead you to think some man in the first century was an incarnate son of God? Since there can be none you don't believe because of the evidence! You believe because you were raised to believe, and now you defend what you prefer to be true.
38 comments:
I think the Christian would believe their friend. Don't people make pilgrimages of sorts to the locations here in America where people say they've seen Jesus in toast, and the vines on power lines [LINK]?
I just think that sadly, because they've been so convinced themselves that what they've been told is real, that they'll believe others when they say they have experiences that support their belief.
Christian, just think one time for yourself without leaning on what your mother told you on her knees. What would you think if someone told you he met someone who was God incarnate in India last week? What would it take to convince you of his testimony?
I don't know why I shouldn't consider what my mother told me amongst other things. Nothing we come to know (at least nothing a posteriori like the claim that God walked the earth), nothing (at least as adults, and very young children) comes from the pure vacuum without reference to much else that we already know. And so we see in scripture (most obvious example is in acts 17) and the history of missionary evangelism that missionaries do indeed make connections with what people already know from the grace of God that has been working in the culture before the missionaries even got there.
What would it take to convince you of his testimony?
If he's a personal God and is relating in a personal way (and of course, he has to be relating in a personal way if he is "walking the earth" and "trying to convince me he is god", then he has to connect properly with what I already know, and if I am deceived, he has to do so in such a way to break through the deceit... but, further, if he is relating to me in a personal way, then my free will cannot be eliminated and my rebellion will be a necessary factor, and there won't necessarily be a guarantee that he will convince me... especially if he also has reason to value that free will (I can offer 5 reasons why libertarian free will would matter to the creator).
Of course he could convince me no matter what and still respect that free will since believing God walked the earth isn't the universal spiritual struggle for all individuals. The landscape of our freedom is individualistic on many grounds as will often be the nature of our rebellion or obedience.
Now, what we find about Jesus is the same kind of testimony but this time we don't know anyone who claims to have met him.
Yes, it is... after the considerations I made. Jesus didn't come in a vaccuum. He fulfilled many Jewish expectations, even if it was in unexpected ways.
It's all written down in the ancient past. We don't know the authors nor can we adequately judge their honesty (honest writing can be faked).
But we aren't disconnected to the ancient past. We have thousands of years of church history in between. Of course we have to treat that with discernment, but at no point has that not been the case for your scenario anyway.
We don't know the authors nor can we adequately judge their honesty (honest writing can be faked).
All alleged knowledge entails some conceivable risk of being false or at least our lack of ability to absolutely prove it (accept Descartes little consideration).
But we do know these authors lived in an era where people believed demigods walked the earth and they believed there were many sons of gods who had virgin births.
Well, they've been lazy in promoting their case. They don't have the living presence of Christ in the world (that's just one consideration... It's not as if the comment section was the place to go on and on about a cummulative case).
Since there can be none you don't believe because of the evidence! You believe because you were raised to believe, and now you defend what you prefer to be true.
False dichotomy. Our upbringing as humans forces to interact with and interpret the evidence. We are raised to interpret it and organize the evidence, but that evidence isn't infinitely flexible and can effect the nature of interpretation.
Magnumdb
Not only have they seen Jesus in toast, but they have seen arms and legs grow back. They have also seen houses with roof tops on fire at Azuza street in this century.
What foolish barbaric nonsense.
Great Post John
I like your posts RobR they are so baffling they provide me with laughter.
The Free will rubbish has got to stop though. Your free will that is more powerful than almighty God! Your free will has become a God to you.
Why can't you just admit that if you heard of someone in India like Loftus decries. YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVRE HIM!
The Free will rubbish has got to stop though.
does it? Well, I can't take your word for it. That's a funny thing about these unsupported claims. There's no reason to believe them.
Your free will that is more powerful than almighty God! Your free will has become a God to you.
Can't imagine why that'd be (except as I've always said, atheists frequently still hold to their former faith tradition and are conditioned by it)
Why can't you just admit that if you heard of someone in India like Loftus decries. YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVRE HIM!
Of course I wouldn't, not without the considerations I made
Rob R,
So after all that being said, you have no reason to believe a god walked the earth 2000 years ago?
Perhaps the most influenced reason to believe in such ridiculous nonsense is the fear of going to hell.
The bible specifically says, if you do not believe, you will be sent to hell.
So people are openly threatened by fear and the fear of eternal punishment in a lake of fire.
at rob.
If he's a personal God and is relating in a personal way (and of course, he has to be relating in a personal way if he is "walking the earth" and "trying to convince me he is god", then he has to connect properly with what I already know
so, even if there were a god and he walked up to you, you wouldnt believe in him if he didn't say what you already believe to be true? what if he had something new to convey, some change in his way of thinking or way he wants men to worship him (after all, the bible is full of instances where god made such changes, from begining to end), and wanted to tell it to YOU, rob, in order to impliment them? wouldnt you be risking your immortal by not believing him?
heres anonther interesting question: which is more important in your mind, what you believe, or god himself? and how would you know if he was god or not? isn't it a "sin" to ask him for proof of his existance? what if he was here to start up the end times? would you doubt who he is and miss the rapture? are you so arrogant that in your mind, you would know the difference between a man and your god? facinating stuff. its a damned if you do or damned if you don't scenerio lol
Nothing would convince me that my honest friend saw God in India last week. Jesus said that the next time He comes to earth you and I and everyone will know it - without doubt.
ok, rob says he would have to prove he was god, even though he requires NO proof that god exists in the first place. and thesauros says that god will tell everyone if he shows up. this is getting nutty. alright thesauros, heres some questions for you:
1.where exactly does it say that jesus will tell everyone if he shows up, and we will all "know it-without doubt". please quote the scripure where he says that.
2.prove that jesus actually said it.
3. if someone claimed to be jesus today, how would you know it was really him? what if he showed up in india? would you believe or doubt? say a friend for instance, claimed he met jesus in india. why wouldn't you believe?
4.are you saying that god does not have the power to show up if he chose? take a human form whenever the mood strikes him and walk among us? where does it say in the bible that in the time between jesus death and the second coming, that god won't do that very thing if he wanted to?
the thought process behind belief is facinating. no one has met or talked to god that i know of, but apparently every devout christian could pick him out of a crowd, or discern the difference between a man and a god in human form. amazing!!!
Nothing would convince me that my honest friend saw God in India last week. Jesus said that the next time He comes to earth you and I and everyone will know it - without doubt.
Did Jesus tell you that personally? Or did you read it in a story about Jesus?
Anyway, I think you missed the point the OP was making: if the same miraculous claims were made today you probably would not believe it, having the same type of evidence that you have for Jesus. Let's say this guy from India was said by his followers to be able to walk on water and raise the dead; and the only evidence that existed would be some anonymously written biographies that were written several decades after the death of this man. Would the average person believe these stories without additional evidence to verify that that particular man in India could really do such things? I would not believe it without better evidence.
mat if I answered each one of your questions sufficiently and clearly, do you honestly think that it would make one flake of difference to your world-view? Honestly? Do you think it would?
no thesauros, it wouldnt make a difference in my world. what facinates me is this. you and other christians would apply the same logical thinking that i would to a "man claims he is god" scenerio. I think walter hit the nail on the head. christians would not believe now what they truly believe happened thousands of years ago, if it happened today. so basically, if the bible were actually true, if jesus "came back", all the true believers would not believe it was him,and demand proof, thereby challenging god and doubting him and be condemned due to their own arrogance. its a catch 22. either you have to believe wholeheartedly that every individual claiming to be jesus christ actually is, until by their own admission they say they are not, or risk being left out of the party. or, deny them all, demand proof of some sort that satisfies you in the form of a test, and risk denying the right one, and again be left out of the party. what a sucky way to live, hoping you spot the right one lol
RobR
Yep they are all unsupported claims.
Martin Luther, John Calvin,C.H. Spurgeon, Dr. Walter Martin and the entire professor staff at Westminster Theological Seminary base there Calvinistic beliefs on unsupported claims. They don't use the Bible to come to there conclusion.
No, it wouldn’t make any difference,”
Then why spend so much time and effort talking about and asking questions about stuff you don’t believe in? I saw a blog this afternoon by some guy who says he left Christianity 14 years ago and he's still posting stuff to try to convince himself that he's made the right decision. sheesh!
==========
“christians would not believe now what they truly believe happened thousands of years ago, if it happened today.”
Well, if Jesus the Messiah had not already appeared,and the prophecies allowed for his arrival to still happen in 2010 or later then people would still be looking for Him.
The fact is the Messiah had to appear and did appear before 70AD so the search is no longer an issue. There were specific signs or prophecies that were meant to help identify the Messiah. Being born in Bethlehem and not some town in India being just one of dozens of them.
========
“so basically, if the bible were actually true, if jesus "came back", all the true believers would not believe it was him,”
Correct - Matthew 26:63-65 is where one of the six trials of Jesus is recorded and He is being accused of claiming to be God incarnate.
And it says, “But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.”
Matthew 24:25-27 is where Jesus is recorded as saying that when He comes back everyone will know AND where He is recorded as saying that if someone says, “there he is in India - don’t believe them.”
It says - “See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”
==========
“either you have to believe wholeheartedly that every individual claiming to be jesus christ actually is,”
With all due respect son, you are in error. Again, if Jesus wasn’t the Messiah then there isn’t a Messiah. If the Messiah didn’t come prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD then He isn’t going to come at all. There were enough prophecies about how to identify the Messiah that if one’s mind wasn’t clouded by preconceived notions of what He should look like or how He should behave, it was something that could be and was known.
As to having to believe what someone else wrote, well, I’m afraid that’s true.
The fact is the Messiah had to appear and did appear before 70AD so the search is no longer an issue. There were specific signs or prophecies that were meant to help identify the Messiah. Being born in Bethlehem and not some town in India being just one of dozens of them.
I am not familiar with any prophecy claiming that Jesus had to appear before 70CE?
As far as Bethlehem goes, you will notice that Jesus was known as Jesus of NAZARETH, not Bethlehem. The anonymous authors of our canonical gospels spun two contradictory tales in an attempt to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem to fulfill a messianic prophecy. In fact, the gospel stories are crafted in such a way as to attempt to show that Jesus fulfilled at least some "prophecies." Jesus did not, however, fulfill Jewish messianic expectations of a conquering Davidic King. The Jewish Messiah was not to be an awesome ruler that restored Israel to greatness, not some meek lamb nailed to a tree.
The Christian idea of a Messiah is a far cry from the Jewish one.
The Jewish Messiah was not to be an awesome ruler that restored Israel to greatness, not some meek lamb nailed to a tree.
That was supposed to read: the Jewish Messiah was to be an awesome ruler...
"I am not familiar with any prophecy claiming that Jesus had to appear before 70CE?"
Oh well, if Walter isn't aware of it then it's discussion over. We all know that conspiracy theorists can be trusted in what they say.
thesauros
the bible does not predict that the 2nd temple would be destroyed in 70 ad, or that the messiah would come prior to the destruction of the second temple. you are refering to Haggai 2:6-9,
"6 For this is what ADONAI-Tzva'ot says: "It won't be long before one more time I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land; 7 and I will shake all the nations, so that the treasures of all the nations will flow in; and I will fill this house with glory," says ADONAI-Tzva'ot. 8 "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine," says ADONAI-Tzva'ot. 9 "The glory of this new house will surpass that of the old," says ADONAI-Tzva'ot, "and in this place I will grant shalom," says ADONAI-Tzva'ot.'".
all this refers to is a prediction of the glory of israel and its new temple. christians use this as a justification for making the case that jesus is the messiah, using the logic after the fact that supposedly the messiah already came since the second temple was destroyed. no second temple, no messiah, in other words. and, in point of fact, the jews are still looking for the messiah to come, and their profhesies, on which christian religion is based, names no specific time frame, so 2010 is just as likely a year as 3047 or 0001.
as to why i come here, i find it intellectually stimulating to have intelligent discussions with people such as yourself. it is enjoying to have this back and forth with people who are willing to have these small debates about christianity and its beliefs. few christians have actually read the bible, so it is fun to ask questions about the stories in it to people who have. i would ask the same question actually, in reverse. what is a devout christian doing here on an atheist website as well as other athiest websites? it sounds like you frequent at least 2. are you questioning your belief? looking for a gleam of hope or proof that god either exists or does not?
"bible does not predict that the 2nd temple would be destroyed in 70 ad,
I didn’t say that it does. I said that the prophecy is that the Messiah will come to His Temple - suddenly. Since the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, for that prophecy to be true, it had to happen prior to the Temple's destruction.
=====
“or that the messiah would come prior to the destruction of the second temple.”
Oh yes it does say that. And no I’m not referring to Haggai 2:6-9
post 1 of 2
Steven,
So after all that being said, you have no reason to believe a god walked the earth 2000 years ago?
no, I have reason. personal reasons and reasons from study. The topic covered ground and I focused elsewhere though I implied the source of my reasoning. The primary matter is on what grounds I'd believe the Jesus story but not something similar (which I judge to be a superficial similarity) from today. And I answered what the conditions would have to be. Those same conditions apply to the gospel, though it all isn't on an individualistic level. I like every single human am dependent upon other people for most of what I believe about history, science, religion and so on.
The bible specifically says, if you do not believe, you will be sent to hell.
Now even John Loftus doesn't believe that that is clearly true about the bible and has said so here on his blog!
by the way, this is a tangent and a red herring if you wish to distract from the topic and deny the significance of where the discussion has progressed.
post 2 of 3
Mr. magnificent,
so, even if there were a god and he walked up to you, you wouldnt believe in him if he didn't say what you already believe to be true?
No, you took what I said too far. Both he and I would have to operate with what I believe to be true (which is the case for ALL knowledge and potential growth in it), connecting appropriately with some of it, correcting other parts if need be. John is asking about a situation that just isn't parallel to the Christian narrative. Jesus isn't some random guy or even some friend who walked up out of the blue and declared himself God. And as a matter of fact, what Jesus said was so veiled that it was arguably upon deep reflection on the tradition that the apostles came to believe that he was God (yes, it's quite explicit in the gospel of John, but the gospels wheren't interested in merely recording what happened but the theological significance of what happened, thus the narrative is shaped in that way).
heres anonther interesting question: which is more important in your mind, what you believe, or god himself?
Our conceptions of God are not God himself. but part of the importance of God to me is hinged to the trust that God has faithfully revealed himself to us. It is highly unlikely that the narrative that John Loftus suggests will be faithful to that.
isn't it a "sin" to ask him for proof of his existance?
I don't believe in proof. why would I ask God for something that doesn't exist? I embrace that all knowledge, mathematical, scientific, religious or other wise takes varying degrees of faith.
Now a good interpretation of the evidence, that is what we have to work on. And to deepen that, that is a reasonable request, but it's not so I personally would have an easier time believing in God. Belief in God after all just isn't the great struggle of faith. There is no one great struggle for faith. The challenge of faith is to "believe" in Jesus. But by belief, scripture wasn't talking about merely agreeing with some statements about Jesus. It means that we are to follow him and his teachings.
would you doubt who he is and miss the rapture?
I have my doubts about the rapture. I don't think it is biblical.
are you so arrogant that in your mind, you would know the difference between a man and your god?
Why would that be arrogant. If I know the difference between God and another person, it's because God would have revealed himself to me.
post 3 of 3
exreformed,
Yep they are all unsupported claims.
yes, they are unsupported by YOU in THIS discussion. Martin luther and calvin and the staff of westminster seminary are NOT HERE to support it.
Now of course many of them have supported there ideas in other contexts, but so what? If that is supposed to be evidence for your claims against mine, it is an appeal to authority, and the problem with that appeal is that it is fallacious for both reasons that appeals to authority can be fallacious. 1) other authorities disagree with them and 2) we are capable and (and kind of willing, provided we acknowledge that you aren't dealing with the topic and are not detracting from what I said about it, or else you are throwing out a red herring) to dig into these matters.
Rob R said,
"...what Jesus said was so veiled that it was arguably upon deep reflection on the tradition that the apostles came to believe that he was God (yes, it's quite explicit in the gospel of John, but the gospels weren't interested in merely recording what happened but the theological significance of what happened, thus the narrative is shaped in that way)."
How convenient...
Rob R said,
"I have my doubts about the rapture. I don't think it is biblical."
Finally! Something we ageree on!
this is certainly no worse than convincing yourself that there is no God when no one could possibly know such a thing
Rob R
I was not trying to appeal to authority to prove that Calvinistic views of the Bible are better then your Arminian views. I was trying to make the point that for hundreds of years Theologians have disagreed about free will, and yet you use it practicably every argument you make.
You said this person claiming to be God in India, if he was really God he would not violate your free will. So I am not throwing in a red herring. I am just sick of free will being used in your arguments that's all, because it is highly probable that your interpretation of free will is wrong.
But now what I really want to know is why you do not believe truth exists. I can't quite recall hearing this from most fundamentalist I have known.
trae said,
"this is certainly no worse than convincing yourself that there is no God when no one could possibly know such a thing."
And certainly no BETTER than convincing yourself that there IS a God when no one could possibly know such a thing...
(You don't really KNOW there's a god; you're just giving credence to rumors (i.e., the Bible), the Lemming Factor (everyone else believes, and they can't all be wrong), and internal "feelings".)
Word ver = 'mindrea'
seems they left out the "der"...
post 1 of 2
I was not trying to appeal to authority to prove that Calvinistic views of the Bible are better then your Arminian views. I was trying to make the point that for hundreds of years Theologians have disagreed about free will, and yet you use it practicably every argument you make.
Listen, you just haven't followed me to know that it isn't even relavent for every discussion I enter and that I don't bring it up. But it sure is relevant when we are talking about human decision as we are here where we are talking about a scenario in which a believer would or would not believe that some guy from India is god.
So what if theologians have been debating this. I HAVE been debating it (I spent years on it, I almost lost my faith when it seemed to me the deterministic picture might be true). I don't understand why some point is contested by someone whom I disagree with means I can't use that point especially when I explicitly and consciously disagree with those people. The fact is, this is logically fallacious thinking. It is the fallacy of controversy (which is a type of a fallacious appeal to authority, but it is the opposite sort of the usual examples of that fallacy)
Everyone is going to have functional parts of their perspective that is contested by someone somewhere, maybe it will even be majorly contested. It does not mean that they can no longer allow that to be a functional part of their understanding and useful part of their response to people who attack their perspective.
As for the issue of the debate being over a thousand years old (Augustine introduced determinism into Christianity), the debate continues to progress.
Anyone following the biblical scholarship just can't assume the same old biblical prooftexts any more with the development of the new perspective on Paul and open theism (and to a lesser extent, lesser to my thinking, molinism). Many new biblical observations have popped up. For example, it is impossible to follow both of the two greatest commandments thoroughly and believe that God has predestined people to hell (or at least miss salvation).
You said this person claiming to be God in India, if he was really God he would not violate your free will. So I am not throwing in a red herring.
here's why it is a red herring. When responding to a criticism, I'm allowed to refer to other parts of my beliefs (that are not directly under attack in this instant) that may not be agreed upon. The question isn't whether I can only respond with beliefs that are agreed upon, the question is whether I can fix the immeadiate problem or meet the immeadiate challenge. So you don't agree with free will? That's a great topic to deal with in it's own right. But it deserves to be dealt with in it's own right without detracting from these other topics that deserve the most attention where John brought it up.
But again, I have said that I am willing to entertain tangents so long as we admit that they are tangents and don't obscure the developement of the main discussion.
But as tangents can bloat a topic and can obscure the development of the main discussion and as it isn't reasonable for one to expect an exhaustive apologetic for everything he believes every time an individual criticism is brought up, I am very very well within rationality to refuse to go into a tangent. I just happen to really love the topic of free will.
I am just sick of free will being used in your arguments that's all, because it is highly probable that your interpretation of free will is wrong.
That's the over statment of the year. And again, this is an unsupported statement. It doesn't matter that some guy out there that I disagree with supported it elsewhere. You haven't supported it in this discussion.
But now what I really want to know is why you do not believe truth exists. I can't quite recall hearing this from most fundamentalist I have known.
Look man, you cannot advance a discussion if you do not support what you say. Obviously I don't believe this, so why you think that I implied it is left a mystery to me.
Granted, I don't proofread like I should and after I post some things, it doesn't always turn out right and sometimes, it says that opposite of what I meant to say. I reread what I wrote to you most recently and I have no clue why you'd draw this conclusion.
Rob R
you wrote I don't believe in proof. why would I ask God for something that doesn't exist? I embrace that all knowledge, mathematical, scientific, religious or other wise takes varying degrees of faith.
You don't believe in proof, I accidentaley typed truth in my last post.
Anyway got a real busy weekend
yes, I don't believe in proof. One could catch me saying that I believe there is good evidence for what I believe, but evidence doesn't passively interpret itself. I do believe that some interpretations are better than others, I don't believe the difference can be judged on purely objective grounds but subjectivity is necessary to many truths anyhow.
Well.. since you mentioned Indian god-men (and god-women)..
So Matt, I didn't give you the references for Messiah coming to the Temple prior to its destruction because you'd said you found this kind of thing intellectually stimulating. Yet I've notice that you didn't post anything on that.
Did you not look up the references to Messiah coming to the Temple prior to its destruction or just not post about it?
If you were hoping that I'd do the work for you, in a day or two I'll be loading two posts on that subject over at my blog.
Good luck on your journey.
The "proof texts" for the Messiah coming before the destruction of the Temple are usually found in a Christianized interpretation of Daniel's Seventy Weeks Prophecy. I don't find them very convincing.
Consider this:
The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies
"are usually found"?
You mean sometimes they're there and sometimes they aren't?
Walter, have you been taken your medication just like the doctor said you should? :-)
I know what you mean. I'm just jokin around.
And I thought Matt said the Prophecy was [usually found] in Haggai! Oh right. The only thing atheists agree on is God doesn't exist.
If you want to check out my post tomorrow I'll help you out.
And I thought Matt said the Prophecy was [usually found] in Haggai! Oh right. The only thing atheists agree on is God doesn't exist.
Correct, atheists do not have creeds that we must adhere to. For the record I like to label myself as an agnostic, who is open to the possibility of there being a god(s). With that said, I am pretty firmly convinced that Christianity is nothing but a man-made mythology.
I have to say, so far I am quite disappointed at what you consider evidence against theism. The case for Jesus' deity rests on far more than "a guy who says so". Not to mention theism in general, it seems ridicule serves as substitute to hard evidence.
"Since there can be none... " (emphasis mine).
I think that's an unfounded assumption. On what grounds does one say "there can be no evidence"
that God walked on earth? Is this not confusing two seperate issues as one?
The first issue being, "Can I conceive of something (either real or hypothetical) that I would count as evidence?"
The other being, "Would such evidence be sufficient for ME ?"
Post a Comment