Evidence: The Gathering

[abaris]

You've put together an impressive list of arguments.

Pray tell, what's impressive about his list? It's a rehash of bible quotes and ancient authors he uses in every thread he creates. Without understanding the nature of facts, evidence or the working manner of the authors he quotes.

[Rhondazvous]

You've put together an impressive list of arguments.

Pray tell, what's impressive about his list? It's a rehash of bible quotes and ancient authors he uses in every thread he creates. Without understanding the nature of facts, evidence or the working manner of the authors he quotes.

Impressive in quantity, not quality. He did what he accused Esquire of doing. Lots of words employed to say nothing.

[Cyberman]

If I were all powerful and wanted my existence known, you would know it because I would be there, and not just in some people's hearts. I would BE there.

There's a little-known folk legend of the Hiding Ghost of Disorderly Manor. Basically, Lord Simon de Cowl was a noted 17th century recluse who survived the Civil War by hiding from Cromwell's troops. Years later on his deathbed, he swore that he would return from the grave and hide from everybody the way he had in life. We know for a fact that he still haunts the area, because in the centuries that followed his ghost has never yet been seen.

[Randy Carson]

In my OP, I listed evidence for the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, the resurrection and so forth. I'd like to add the following to the lists:

• Near Death Experiences
  
• The Five Minimal Facts
  

Additionally, I'd like to provide an important explanation regarding the nature of evidence itself because I think there is much misunderstanding about what is and is not valid evidence for the claims of Christianity. As a starting point for this discussion, I'm going to quote from a an expert on the subject -- cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist who became a Christian as a result of his study of the evidence that many in this forum reject.

Wallace explains:

“Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies that he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.” This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something rerlatd to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.” The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step outside of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.

“Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.

“Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitle to any greater weight than the other.”

“Circumstantial evidence has been unfairly maligned over the years; it’s important to recognize that this form of evidence is not inferior in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are times when you can trust circumstantial evidence far more than you can trust direct evidence. Witnesses, for example, can lie or be mistaken about their observations; they must be evaluated before they can be trusted. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, cannot lie; it is what it is. You and I have the ability to assess and make inference from the circumstantial evidence using our own reasoning power to come to a conclusion. It’s not a coincidence that I was a non-believer before I learned anything about the nature of evidence. In those days, as I was evaluating the claims of Christianity, I demanded a form of evidence (direct evidence) that simply isn’t available to anyone who is studying historical events. I failed to see that rejecting (or devaluing) circumstantial evidence would prevent me from understanding anything about history (when eyewitnesses are unavailable for an interview). If I continued to reject (or devalue) circumstantial evidence, I would never have been able to successfully prosecute a single cold-case killer. All of us need to respect the power and nature of circumstantial evidence in determining the truth so that we can be open to the role that circumstantial evidence plays in making the case for Christianity.” (J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 54-55, 66-67)

+++

In light of this overview of the value and validity of circumstantial evidence, it would be helpful for skeptics to look again at the evidence listed in the OP to determine whether it consistently points to the conclusions of Christianity.

[Minimalist]

Your silly old books are evidence of nothing except your own willingness to be conned.  Grow the fuck up.

[Jenny A]

Randy:

I don't find a cold case or any other detective's definition of evidence particularly useful.  The legal definition most common in American court rooms and I think almost perfect,  is that evidence is any fact that makes the proposition claimed either more or less likely. 

Looking at your five "facts" the question is whether they make a resurrection more or less likely.  Death by crucifixion does not.  How one dies or even if the method of death is accurately portrayed does not make resurrection more or less likely.  At best it is foundational evidence necessary for other facts to make the resurrection more or less likely.  That is to say it is evidence of death, which is a necessary prerequisite to rising from the dead but not evidence of rising from the dead. That the disciples and Jesus's brother thought they saw Jesus returned from the dead would be actual evidence, though not proof (provided that their belief can be shown by evidence to be a fact.)  Paul's, who never even saw Jesus alive, vision of Jesus is not evidence at all of the resurrection.  It neither advances nor detracts from the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.  The empty tomb, should it be shown to be a fact is also evidence for resurrection because it make the claim at least a little more likely. Not much though as it is so much more likely that someone removed the body by natural means.

Your insurmountable problem, and the reason I find your claims laughable, comes in weighing the evidence.  The least burden of proof is to show that the claim is more likely than not, this is the burden of proof in civil cases.  An empty tomb and eleven disciples plus a brother who believe is a slender reed on which to hang a supernatural event.  Odds still many millions to one against.  Case not proven.

No wonder Jesus and his followers valued faith before evidence so much.  They had such insufficient evidence.

Now you want to add NDEs which are quite medically explainable and culturally driven.  Clearly not divine.  There you show only your willingness to accept miniscule evidence for humungous claims.  Just like your five "facts" and the giant claim of resurrection.

[robvalue]

Paul just made shit up, or got deluded, based on a vision. Anyone can do that. Why is he in the bible? Even if you actually believe it happened, it's still not credible evidence of anything.

[Homeless Nutter]

In my OP, I listed evidence for the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, the resurrection and so forth. I'd like to add the following to the lists:

• Near Death Experiences[...]
  

lol. 
Sure - hallucinations of an oxygen deprived brain, interpreted in the most biased way possible are what you consider "evidence". Shows how much your arguments are worth...
#graspingatstraws

I'll bet your wet dreams prove, that you're the world's greatest lover.

[Longhorn]

Oh no.....He caught the Rik virus! RUUUN!!

[Randy Carson]

Paul just made shit up, or got deluded, based on a vision. Anyone can do that. Why is he in the bible? Even if you actually believe it happened, it's still not credible evidence of anything.

Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?