Evidence for Christianity

[dqualk]

A lot of people say there is no evidence for Christinaity or theism in general. This is empircally false. There is a load of evidence for Theism. However, none of the evidence is conclusive. But things like reports of an empty tomb, down to the person on the side of the street who claimed to have a vision of God, to the "healer" going around healing people. Yes I know these could be illusions or we don't say God gave cancer etc. But just becuase there are rational explanations for what appears, at least in some sense, to be supernatural, that does not mean its not supernatural.

The convictions of billions is a good deal of evidence too. Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right. But its evidence.

There is also the crisis of life that leads many to the belief in God. That is all men are born broken into a broken world. We do that which we do not want to do and we don't do that which we would like to do, e.g. we wish we would read more or eat less. Further there is a lot of sad things going on in the world. The world is broken. We are born into this broken world broken, but there is something that does not make sense within us, life, and a desire for meaning. We all desire for there to be intrinsic value. Further we beleive there is intrinsic value a priori. Everyone grows up saying such IS right and such IS wrong in and of itself. Now we can learn that what we thought was nature was actually convention, and often this is the case, and of course for the atheist this is always the case. However, this is the crisis: brokeness and a desire for reason/meaning. This leads men to reationally conclude that there must be a God who gives meaning to those things which have no meaning within the rational realm, like intrinsic value, and an answer to the brokeness.

Anyway feel free to post more evidence for God, or perhaps if you are the type, you know 'em, loud as a motor bike but wouldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight, you can post a bunch of slurs and insults directed towards theists, or you can post why you beleive such and such evidence is lacking to the point of absurdity, or perhaps its lacking to the point that you are not willing take on that belief.

In Christ,

Signature: Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks….
.
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
- Albert Einstein, Time magazine, 23rd December, 1940 p. 38

[The Skeptic]

hello, I take it you are from the WW2 era and live in Germany?


Anyway, that's one of the problems many atheists have with the "evidence" is that it isn't conclusive. The passage in the bible about "Doubting Thomas" (John 20:24-29) describes my attitude as well as that of many other non believers; we don't want to believe we want to know. The parable of doubting Thomas serves to promote faith, but me and many others do not find the concept of religious faith motivating or valid. The arguments can be broken into a priori/ rationalist arguments that depend more on pure deduction, and then more empirical based arguments like the ones from design, etc. I actually studied several books by Christian authors before I EVER touched a book by an atheist. When I was exploring different faiths, I read many Christian books including CS Lewis's Mere Christianity, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, and I think I read part of The Case for Creation, also by Lee Strobel. I've read What's the Difference? by Fritz Ridenour. That was a few years ago, more recently I have studied the more sophistiated arguments from people like Søren Kierkegaard, Aquinas, etc. Even as a kid I had a skeptical side to me, and when I matured and could think for myself, and read those books I listed above, I ultimately did not find the arguments satisfying. Granted, then I didn't have the sophisticated philosophical knowledge to say why, but now that i'm older, studied philosophy heavily, and read more material from a theist perspective, as well as reading many books on atheism, I have to say I find the arguments from the non-believer's side more convincing.


And from what i've heard, while there were some very admirable priests -- catholic and protestant alike -- the Church either supported or at least didn't outright oppose Hitler. Though, considering Hitler's ally Mussolini surrounded the Vatican on all sides, can you really blame them? Even so, you'd expect more outright opposition to Hitler's vile campaign from what is supposed to be the top moral authority in the world.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Brandon "The Skeptic"

[orogenicman]

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.

Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

[Of_Tomato]

Wall of text

Misleading topic. Loads of text. Not a single piece of evidence. Move along.

[Skipper]

The convictions of billions is a good deal of evidence too. Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right. But its evidence.

Stopped reading after that to be honest.

Ignorance breeds ignorance. Christians breed Christians. Religion breeds religion. Millions and millions of Muslims have got pretty strong convictions their religion is correct too, do you accept that as evidence Islam is correct?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

A lot of people say there is no evidence for Christinaity or theism in general. This is empircally false. There is a load of evidence for Theism. However, none of the evidence is conclusive. But things like reports of an empty tomb, down to the person on the side of the street who claimed to have a vision of God, to the "healer" going around healing people. Yes I know these could be illusions or we don't say God gave cancer etc. But just becuase there are rational explanations for what appears, at least in some sense, to be supernatural, that does not mean its not supernatural.

If the evidence is inconclusive, then how you can conclude that it's evidence for Christianity?
Feh. No matter. I can already see that this post is going in the direction of "I don't know what things are, therefore god exists."
Yes, a lot of strange things happen in the world that can't be explained by current or conventional sciences, but that doesn't mean the supernatural is involved because there is also no evidence that there is a supernatural force that exists.

The convictions of billions is a good deal of evidence too. Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right. But its evidence.

The convictions of 2.1 billion christians doesn't outweigh everyone else in the world with their completely different take on their respective fantasies. It also doesn't compete with the fact that not on person of the 6.9 billion people in the world have proven a supernatural force at work in the universe anywhere.
Further, the 'convictions' of people isn't evidence that their convictions are justified by reality.

There is also the crisis of life that leads many to the belief in God. That is all men are born broken into a broken world. We do that which we do not want to do and we don't do that which we would like to do, e.g. we wish we would read more or eat less. Further there is a lot of sad things going on in the world. The world is broken. We are born into this broken world broken, but there is something that does not make sense within us, life, and a desire for meaning.

Doesn't that fly in the face of god believing that his creation was 'good' in the bible? I would think that if god thought the world and mankind were broken, he would have said so.
... but then again, god, an omnicient and perfect being, was not only satisfied with his creation from the start, but stopped being satisfied with it at a later time to commit the genoicide of the human race known as Noah's Flood despite having perfect knowledge of the future.

We all desire for there to be intrinsic value. Further we beleive there is intrinsic value a priori. Everyone grows up saying such IS right and such IS wrong in and of itself. Now we can learn that what we thought was nature was actually convention, and often this is the case, and of course for the atheist this is always the case. However, this is the crisis: brokeness and a desire for reason/meaning. This leads men to reationally conclude that there must be a God who gives meaning to those things which have no meaning within the rational realm, like intrinsic value, and an answer to the brokeness.

I love how christians assume that people are unified in things like this when they forget that even if more people believed in christianity than anyone else, that they're far from unified on any position in regard to their beliefs with one another. Case and point: Mormanism and Catholicism and Jahova's Witnesses and Southern Baptists and so forth...
It's gross oversimplifications like this that give the false impression that religion and its conclusions are a natural conclusion of the human experience, forgetting that Christians are violently opposed to many other religions, such as Islam but even within their own ranks.
I couldn't even make arguements all the way down to the individuals since many people have their own take on religion even with two people from the same individual church.
The closest thing that people have to an objective truth is the one branch of humanity that they take advantage of when it's beneficial but remain violently opposed to in virtually every other respect because it flies in the face of their crazy beliefs: the Scientific Community.

Anyway feel free to post more evidence for God, or perhaps if you are the type, you know 'em, loud as a motor bike but wouldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight, you can post a bunch of slurs and insults directed towards theists, or you can post why you beleive such and such evidence is lacking to the point of absurdity, or perhaps its lacking to the point that you are not willing take on that belief.

More evidence? What evidence have you presented?
Because no matter how many times you add "0" to "0", you'll still end up with zero evidence.

[Thor]

A lot of people say there is no evidence for Christinaity or theism in general. This is empircally false. There is a load of evidence for Theism. However, none of the evidence is conclusive.

There is a load of evidence for Santa Claus, but none of it is conclusive. Same goes for the Easter Bunny, mermaids, Mickey Mouse and Paul Bunyan.

Is this really the best you can do?

[DeistPaladin]

But things like reports of an empty tomb,

Which one? There are three "empty tombs", all of which claim to be the real deal.

down to the person on the side of the street who claimed to have a vision of God,

Who? David Koresh? Joseph Smith? Some other cultist you don't believe? Look up "special pleading" sometime.

to the "healer" going around healing people.

Heal Stephen Hawking. Then I'll convert.

The convictions of billions is a good deal of evidence too. Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right. But its evidence.

No, it's a logical fallacy called "appeal to popularity".

There is also the crisis of life that leads many to the belief in God.

Appeal to consequences.

desire for meaning.

What you want to be true isn't necessarily true.

Everyone grows up saying such IS right and such IS wrong in and of itself.

Morality and the existence of God are separate issues. If morality is objective, it must exist outside of God (i.e. something that is wrong is always wrong even if God were to say otherwise). If it exists outside of God, it is able to exist without God.

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth.

I studied the rise and fall of the Third Reich for most of the year of my German IV class in high school (wir haben die bucher "Die Zwolf Dunkle Jahre Des Deutches Gischechte" im Gymnasium gelessed). He and the Church had a working understanding and treaty. Hitler often spoke of his devotion to "the Lord'.

[Minimalist]

However, none of the evidence is conclusive.

Which never stops the superstitious from overvaluing it.

[Anomalocaris]

The evidence for Christianity is to be found in any church. But the evidence for the truth of any unique claims of Christianity is a totally different matter.