Misconceptions of Christian theology

[Minimalist]

However I disagree that the proof for Christianity must come from someone else definition of proof.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own definition of words.

proof
noun
1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

Recall that your own gospels try a sleight of hand by claiming an empty tomb and suggesting that there could be no other possible explanation. That is not evidence. That is propaganda.

God gives people revelation of God's existence when they seek God.

That's convenient. You know what? "God" makes people drunk when they drink too much, too. I reject the idea that you can attribute anything you want to "god" when you have not established "god" as a viable entity.

[jstrodel]

Minimalist, what makes that dictionary authoritative? Why should the concept of proof be authoritative. A dictionary definition is not philosophically authoritative. Proof is one cultural concept that is related to certain methods of evidence collection. The fact that that particular dictionary includes 5 separate definitions of proof illustrates this.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: without referring to the bible, prove to me that your god exists. Show us why we should take your great book of made up fairytales seriously. And this time, do it without rattling off every stupid stereotype about atheists you know of, huh?

First I would ask this: prove to me that the english language concept of proof, as expressed in the dictionary that minamalist listed, has some sort of absolute epistemological authority, without using swear words and referring to masturbation.

The concept of God has power to explain a variety of problems. The question of the ultimate origin of life is explained by the God hypothesis (the cosmological argument). The question of the order of nature is also explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the seemingly overpowering need for morality is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the life of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection as well the miracles that followed in the church age is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the relationship between Old Testament prophesy and the life of Jesus Christ is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the overpowering might of western civilization (without justifying its errors), which has dominated a lot of the world is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the extremely pervasive belief in spirits and testimonies of spirits is explained by rejecting a materialistic view of the world. The question of the role of religious belief in promoting order and good character for thousands of years is explained by the God hypothesis. Personally, the question of the many supernatural miracles as well as occult involvement that I have experienced is explained by the God hypothesis.

Whether any of these things in itself can actually prove that God exists, according to your definition, I really doubt it. But there are very few things that can be proved in science or in a courtroom or anywhere else definitively. When you add up all the evidence, I am not sure that it will be compelling, but that is really not the point. The point is to see that if it might be possible if God exists, and if it is possible, than people should seek God to find out.

I know that God exists because of personal experience testifying the reality of God. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God without having this experience, but any doubt that God is real will be erased if you actually experience the Holy Spirit. It is a fact that the Holy Spirit is real, I am sensitive to psychological manipulation and am a skeptical witness. I bear witness to the reality of the Holy Spirit.

I do not think that theology is less rigorous than science, and do not think that theology is based mostly on blind faith. Faith, understood in the the sense of blind trust, is really only a bigger factor in determining religious belief in immature believers, just as reciting mathematical formulas would be an issue in education for younger students of math, but older students would learn proof.

If you want proof, you have to grow up! I doubt you would be able to prove that God exists to anyone after you saw God though, just as someone who witnessed a murder would not necessarily be able to prove what He saw. But with theology you can have something that is stronger than an epistemological proof, you can actually be a witness to the truth of theology. God will draw you in. I prayed "show me Your glory" and God displayed many supernatural signs, miracles and many amazing things to me. God showed me how He knows everything and how God knows each event in my life. I saw the majesty of God's judgements.

I have something better than proof, I am a witness.

[EGross]

[quote='jstrodel' pid='412302' dateline='1362940290']

[If you want proof, you have to grow up! I doubt you would be able to prove that God exists to anyone after you saw God though, just as someone who witnessed a murder would not necessarily be able to prove what He saw.[\quote]

With a muder, you normally have a body.

If 3500 years ago, God was so flamouyant, parting seas and burning pillars. 2000 years ago he had a zombie resurrection-fest. a few hundred years after that he spoke directly to Mohammed.

So either everybody made this stuff up, since there is no physical evidence that any of that supernatural stuff ever happened, or God just got shy, doesn't say "Hey, wassup?!", didn't shout "Hey, you guys in those twin towers, you may want to get out of there!" or he decided to protect the descendants of Abraham out of a promise, but renegged in WWII as he helped stoke those fires.

Like I said, with murder, you have a body. With God, you have nothing.

[jstrodel]

Well what about the cases in which you don't have a body?

Also, there is archeological evidence for a lot of what happens in the Bible (e.g. David, what happens in the book of acts in the regions, etc). I do not know of any physical evidence for miracles that would meet the criteria you demand, but if you want to learn about people that have done miracles you could read up about Heidi Baker or John G Lake.

I have seen miracles in my own life. They are real.

[LastPoet]

I have seen miracles in my own life. They are real.

Well, aren't you special. Are you a jehova's whitness? I'm not, I never saw the accident.

[Angrboda]

Ah thanks for the clarification. But the news didn't break it down that way at first. Ah, well...

I would suggest that John is misrepresenting the results of the survey. Yes, education is a strong confounding factor, but the report explicitly states that even after controlling for education, atheists rank at or near the top. Moreover, the spread is interesting as well, out of a total of 12 questions specific to Christianity, Mormons averaged 7.9 right, white evangelicals 7.3, and atheists 6.7; Protestants as a whole, 6.5, and Catholics 5.4. Moreover, if these questions are as mind numbingly simple as John suggests, that only makes the inability of Christians as a whole to answer them mind numbingly embarrassing for Christianity. This fact is only made worse by the fact that atheists are being tested on something that isn't central to their lives, and that such knowledge should be central to the life of a Christian. Moreover, this is also glossing over the abysmal ignorance of Christians concerning religion and public life, consisting of 4 questions, with the average number correct being 2.8 for Atheists, 2.7 for Jews, Mormons and white evangelicals 2.3, and Protestants and Catholics overall at 2.1. (In defense of white evangelicals, there is a concerted anti-intellectual disinformation campaign among white evangelicals to mislead and misinform their constituency about matters of religion as it relates to public life, so their failures here may be partly a consequence of having been lied to by their own people.)

But I suggest you read the study for yourself rather than rely on John's dishonest spinmeistering.



(ETA: Grabbing a quick figure from Beliefnet.com, it appears that white evangelicals only make up about 12% of Christians [U.S.?], making their performance in the Pew survey even less spectacular. This may not be a reliable figure, as I haven't adequately researched the matter. [see here])

[ThomM]

I have something better than proof, I am a witness.
[/quote]


AND that claim is MEANINGLESS - simply no better than the ramblings of a con man going after a mark.

WE have such claims from every religious group - tens of thousands of claims like that.

THEY are - much like the so called near death experiences - of absolutely no use.

WHY?

Because they do not all see the same god. Since the claims of religions contradict each other - they cannot all exist - so they cannot all be true.

And - since they cannot all be true - we can reject any that are offered without the ability to test and verify the "witnessing".

So your claim is rejected.

---

up about Heidi Baker or John G Lake.

I have seen miracles in my own life. They are real.
[/quote]


Indeed - there are what humans consider to be "miracles" happening everyday.
Humans have conquered LOTS of diseases that - in the past - would be considered a miracle. No doubt the Great Pyramid has been called a miracle - and certainly Space Travel would be beyond miraculous.

THe problem is - there is NO way for you to claim that the miracles in your own life had anything to do with a deity -or were simply another example of chance. THAT is because your personal experiences are NOT a representative sample of the experiences of the general populations of humans. When you add your own claimed experiences with a thousands of others humans in a representative sample of humanity - turns out that your claims are not anything beyond chance.

THAT is why there has NEVER been a study - using a representative sample of the population of a country - much less the world - - and published in a recognized scientific peer reviewed journal - that shows that prayer has ANY result beyond chance. Religion depend on the "heartfelt" but ultimately unauthoritative claims of single humans - as a "proof" of their claims - but such statements are not proof. ANd often - these proofs are also parlor tricks and frauds (Like the wheelchair person who can walk - every weekend on cue from that pastor in a different place)

Example

Sick People LIVE because whatever ailment they have is unable to overcome the natural defenses their bodies have - which is different for different people. THAT is the explanation - it is NOT a miracle that someone did not die from a disease that MOST people die from - it is chance.

[Cyberman]

Well what about the cases in which you don't have a body?

Actually it's not generally necessary to have an actual physical body to prosecute a case of murder. All that's required is the body of evidence. Got any?

[Esquilax]

Minimalist, what makes that dictionary authoritative? Why should the concept of proof be authoritative. A dictionary definition is not philosophically authoritative. Proof is one cultural concept that is related to certain methods of evidence collection. The fact that that particular dictionary includes 5 separate definitions of proof illustrates this.

Once you can explain to us how any one thing in a language can be authoritative, or even what that means beyond a little linguistic "nuh uh!" on your part, then we'll talk.

First I would ask this: prove to me that the english language concept of proof, as expressed in the dictionary that minamalist listed, has some sort of absolute epistemological authority, without using swear words and referring to masturbation.

Look, I'm not Min, okay? I can't be held up to what he says, and frankly I don't care either. I'll evaluate your evidence claims based on their merit, not the level to which they conform to a dictionary definition. Stop stalling and actually show me something real.

The concept of God has power to explain a variety of problems. The question of the ultimate origin of life is explained by the God hypothesis (the cosmological argument). The question of the order of nature is also explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the seemingly overpowering need for morality is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the life of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection as well the miracles that followed in the church age is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the relationship between Old Testament prophesy and the life of Jesus Christ is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the overpowering might of western civilization (without justifying its errors), which has dominated a lot of the world is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the extremely pervasive belief in spirits and testimonies of spirits is explained by rejecting a materialistic view of the world. The question of the role of religious belief in promoting order and good character for thousands of years is explained by the God hypothesis. Personally, the question of the many supernatural miracles as well as occult involvement that I have experienced is explained by the God hypothesis.

Nah. God has no explanatory power, it's just a lazy justification from people who don't really care about the truth. All you're really saying, when you use the "God hypothesis" to explain something, is that magic did it, and then you're shrugging.

By contrast, real things that actually exist actually explain things. You know, like science, and history, and sociology. Things with actual explanatory power. That's why the bible is routinely proven wrong on a variety of its claims.

Whether any of these things in itself can actually prove that God exists, according to your definition, I really doubt it. But there are very few things that can be proved in science or in a courtroom or anywhere else definitively. When you add up all the evidence, I am not sure that it will be compelling, but that is really not the point. The point is to see that if it might be possible if God exists, and if it is possible, than people should seek God to find out.

Swap out the word god for literally anything else, and you'll see how silly this line of reasoning is:

The point is, if it might be possible that Yog Sothoth exists, and if it is possible, then people should seek Yog Sothoth to find out.

You're making a very general claim with very general expectations, but then demanding that we restrict our view of it to just your pet deity alone. What's to stop that being true of any kind of entity one can imagine?

I know that God exists because of personal experience testifying the reality of God. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God without having this experience, but any doubt that God is real will be erased if you actually experience the Holy Spirit. It is a fact that the Holy Spirit is real, I am sensitive to psychological manipulation and am a skeptical witness. I bear witness to the reality of the Holy Spirit.

It's perfectly reasonable to believe in god without either real evidence or any form of personal experience? Believing... just because? How can that possibly be reasonable?

Beyond which, your own personal experiences are certainly not justification for anyone else to believe.

I do not think that theology is less rigorous than science, and do not think that theology is based mostly on blind faith. Faith, understood in the the sense of blind trust, is really only a bigger factor in determining religious belief in immature believers, just as reciting mathematical formulas would be an issue in education for younger students of math, but older students would learn proof.

So you'd better start displaying that rigorous proof, then. I mean, so far you've given next to nothing.

If you want proof, you have to grow up!

This is not an argument. It is a dirty, dishonest trick.

I doubt you would be able to prove that God exists to anyone after you saw God though, just as someone who witnessed a murder would not necessarily be able to prove what He saw. But with theology you can have something that is stronger than an epistemological proof, you can actually be a witness to the truth of theology. God will draw you in. I prayed "show me Your glory" and God displayed many supernatural signs, miracles and many amazing things to me. God showed me how He knows everything and how God knows each event in my life. I saw the majesty of God's judgements.

So, so long as I have a presupposition that god exists, I can find highly personal, possibly hallucinatory proof that he exists? Well shit, why wouldn't I find your dubious claims to personal revelations compelling!

I have something better than proof, I am a witness.

So you have no proof at all. Why not just say that at the beginning?

[jstrodel]

You didn't prove that God has no explanatory power, you just claimed that God did.

It is wrong to compare Christianity to "Yog Sothoth" because Christianity is the most influential ideology that has ever existed, far more influential than any of the disciplines that you mentioned whose modern synthesis mostly goes back to the 19th century.