(September 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: This thread serves as a repository for my thoughts on the evidence for God's existence and for Christianity as well as for discussion of this topic. The following addition is relevant to the overall understanding of the nature and role of evidence:
There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:
Category One: Direct Evidence
Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.
Category Two: Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence
Everything else. This includes:
- the internal evidence of language, pronoun use, and frequency of names relative to the population at large
- the internal descriptions of geography, culture and politics
- the evidence of archaeology
- the early reluctant parallel descriptions offered by non-Christians and Jewish believers
- the early dating of the Gospels established indirectly
- the transmission of the Gospels found in the writings of the early Church Fathers
Source.
I think you need to look up the difference between direct and circumstantial (otherwise know as indirect evidence). Direct evidence is merely evidence that does not require further information or inferences to be probative. Indirect evidence does. Eyewitness testimony can be either. I say I saw you come out of a hotel, that's direct evidence that you did, and indirect evidence that you either had a room there or were visiting someone who did.
I'm not certain why you feel the need to differential between circumstantial and direct evidence because some direct evidence is less probative than indirect evidence and vis-versa.
If a drunken man says he saw a man walking two feet above the ground, it's direct evidence that a man was walking two feet above the ground but not very good direct evidence. If I say that I was outside at noon and the ground was dry, but when I went out at two the ground was covered in snow, that's indirect evidence that it snowed between noon and two. The snow itself is direct evidence that it snowed at some time.
That said, Christians don't have ANY eyewitness testimony, unless you count Paul's statements in his letters. The Gospels and Acts are not written in the first person and there is nothing about them that suggests that the are written by eyewitnesses.
Finally, even as a collective all Christian evidence is laughably short of what is need to make the divinity, miracles, or resurrection of Jesus more likely than not. Six eyewitnesses modern accounts would be insufficient. So why bother trying to prove the unprovable?
If there were a god and he had any interest in proving his existence, he could do it.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.