Evidence: The Gathering

[dyresand]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As far s your source go they are making shit up so yeah... so they are lying.

christianity and religion in general the worlds greatest lie sold to morons who had extra pocket change.

You make a strong, compelling case for atheism, dyresand. Impressive. Truly.

Well my side has evidence in reality science and history you have bronze age myth and wishful thinking i.e. "faith" and faith itself is useless virtue all it is in reality
wanting something so bad to be real or wanting to get something so bad without taking any action and that is the same for prayer. You can pray your sickness away chances are 
it wont work where as getting your ass up and to a doctor that works.

[Randy Carson]

[pocaracas]

The other day, I came across an idea of how circumstantial evidence can be used concerning the bible...
It seems Mark is the gospel that was first written.
And it seems that the first versions of this gospel missed a part at the end... the resurrection part. It ends with women finding an empty tomb and telling no one. (if they told no one, how could Mark know about it to write it?)
There are, at least, 3 surviving manuscripts with this version of Mark, all dating from the first 3 centuries CE.

Then, something happens. Mark's gospel gets an addition in tandem with the stories in the remaining gospels... curious that...
It's almost as if Mark didn't know anything about that resurrection...
If he didn't know, then how come the other, later, guys did?
I mean, Mark did know quite a bit about J.C.'s life... what happened to his sources concerning J.C.'s post-life?

This circumstantial evidence suggests, to me, that all the other gospel writers... lied (perhaps not on purpose, they may have just continued a story that was already floating by).

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The other day, I came across an idea of how circumstantial evidence can be used concerning the bible...
It seems Mark is the gospel that was first written.
And it seems that the first versions of this gospel missed a part at the end... the resurrection part. It ends with women finding an empty tomb and telling no one. (if they told no one, how could Mark know about it to write it?)
There are, at least, 3 surviving manuscripts with this version of Mark, all dating from the first 3 centuries CE.

Then, something happens. Mark's gospel gets an addition in tandem with the stories in the remaining gospels... curious that...
It's almost as if Mark didn't know anything about that resurrection...
If he didn't know, then how come the other, later, guys did?
I mean, Mark did know quite a bit about J.C.'s life... what happened to his sources concerning J.C.'s post-life?

This circumstantial evidence suggests, to me, that all the other gospel writers... lied (perhaps not on purpose, they may have just continued a story that was already floating by).

It's highly doubtful if there is one intact manuscript from the first three centuries, let alone three about the same topic.

[pocaracas]

[Cyberman]

You know, I really would like to take Randy's arguments at face value and assess his sources; but I find all the arrogant posturing extremely offputting. I find myself thinking he's trying to misdirect me.

[Randy Carson]

There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:

But they don't, really? They use category two and then, as your source neatly shows, then attempt to special plead the bible into the first category when it's little more than hearsay.

Would a professional historian (theist or skeptic) relegate the four gospels to the dustbin of mere hearsay? Apparently not by all accounts.

Category One: Direct Evidence

Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.

So I took a look at your source.

Thank you. This is a rare thing here at AF where "refutation" consists primarily in using foul language and obscene memes instead of reasoned arguments that carry real weight. I had always heard that atheists think of themselves as the "brights" and those of us who actually think there is something to be said for the existence of an uncaused cause to be as the shallow end of the gene pool...but that's not really so obvious here, is it?

Present company excepted, of course.

Wallace asserts that the gospels count as eyewitness testimony, despite fitting all the criteria of hearsay, and to support this he links to another article of his that is, at best, self serving in its omissions. I mean, for starters it's pretty interesting that a guy so intent on using his a forensic approach on the case for christianity as Wallace is would so easily dismiss the efficacy of that same approach when its application wouldn't lead one to accept the gospels as evidence, but even if we take his demand that we use a different standard for the gospels while still considering them eyewitness testimony, he's still in the wrong.

If you read the article carefully, you noted that Wallace does give a word of caution concerning the gospels as direct evidence, no?

Wallace's second standard, the one for establishing the truth of historical accounts, is flat out incorrect, and presents a ridiculous dichotomy to get there. He claims that "history is established on the written testimony of eyewitnesses," and that's not entirely true; in actuality, the probability of historical events being true are established by research into the provenance of the testimony and additional investigation of its claims. That's why we have fields like archaeology and so on, so that we don't have to rely on the say-so of testimony, and in many cases, so we can discount testimony when the balance of evidence shows otherwise.

I agree with you...and so does Wallace. I have read his book twice...taken notes, underlined, posted portions here and elsewhere...in short, I think I know what he's say reasonable well, and he goes to GREAT lengths to argue for early dating, authorship, internal corroboration, external corroboration (archaeological and otherwise), enemy attestation, the criterion of embarrassment...the whole shootin' match. I think it's fair to say that he pieces together a very compelling case for the core message of Christianity based upon an embarrassment of circumstantial riches.

However, the one article quoted from his website could not possibly do justice to all of that and it may have given you the impression that he's attempting to skip over a few steps in the process. It would be wrong to judge the corpus of his work on one such article.

Wallace says that we can't reject every claim about the past that cannot be supported by living testimony, either unaware or ignoring the fact that this isn't what we're asking when we say that the gospels are hearsay. Thus far I've ignored the obvious issue (and Wallace seems happy to do likewise) that the authorship of the gospels is a contentious issue with no clear answer, making the claim that they are written accounts by eyewitnesses dubious to begin with. But given that Wallace constructs a strawman of his opposition to begin with, well...

I have posted the essence of his arguments for traditional authorship and early dating the the Reliability of the New Testament Thread. He's following (I think) Habermas and Strobel and others who see a clear path to early Markan authorship. While I am aware that Catholic scholars have tended to be more conservative regarding the dates, I think the reasoning advanced by these scholars and outlined in my thread is compelling.

So, I have a question: Keeping in mind that I disagree with Wallace's views on hearsay and historical texts, do you really think that circumstantial evidence is enough to fully establish the biblical claims? Including the supernatural stuff, for which none of what you list would directly point?

"Fully establish?"

No, Mike, I don't. If that surprises you, it shouldn't. What I do think is that circumstantial evidence points to the probability that the gospel is more likely to be true than not - healing the blind, walking on water, and all. The Shroud, NDE's, the bones under St. Peter's, the fact that the Catholic Church even exists at all, the prophecies concerning the Messiah from the OT, the Cosmological or Teleological arguments for God's existence...all this and more can only take us so far. These things clear away the intellectual objections, but they don't coerce us.

In the end, we still have to face our emotional objections - the hurts we may have endured from Christians who bore poor witness to the love of God, for example - and we have to choose. We have to DECIDE that we will say, "Yes" to God. In doing so, we begin to experience God personally, and this carries us the rest of the way home.

More broadly, do you think that the sort of evidence we would accept for ordinary claims is sufficient to justify extraordinary ones, that again, we haven't even established are possible?

You have said it. "Sufficient" is the key word, and yes, I do think that the evidence we have is sufficient to bring a reasonably objective person who examines these things without presuppositions to the point of being able to say "yes" to God's grace.

And it IS by grace alone that we reach this point of decision. In the end, faith itself is a gift from God which we must desire in order to receive.

[Jenny A]

[rexbeccarox]

LOL @ Randy accusing Jenny of "constant harping".

[robvalue]

One way I try and get people to reflect upon the standard of evidence they are using is to pose this question:

If you were on trial for murder, and the prosecution presented evidence like this against you, would you accept being found guilty as reasonable (whether or not you did the crime)?