Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Owlswing]

Thank you.  I have read the thread you mentioned (appeal to Hope).  It's all a question of perception, I fear.

I really do not like calling out posters by name, have no personal objections to anyone on here.

Anyway I am off to bed now, will sleep on it and see you sine die.
I'm grateful for your reply.
Night night,  Brownie

Fair enough - to each their own.

I just do not like having my religioous beliefs abused by those of other religions, while being roundly condemned if I do the same to them.

The one thing that really gets me is the fact that they are terminally incapable of admitting that, like mine and everybody elses, their religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT OF FACT!

I include in the above the atheists of the world who put their FAITH in the likelyhood that the various deities do not, IN FACT, exist.

[torridon]

The one thing that really gets me is the fact that they are terminally incapable of admitting that, like mine and everybody elses, their religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT OF FACT!

I include in the above the atheists of the world who put their FAITH in the likelyhood that the various deities do not, IN FACT, exist.

That's incorrect, and I think you have been corrected on that misunderstanding before.  Atheism is a lack of belief, a lack of faith, not a positive faith in the lack of deities.  There is a difference.

[Bubbles]

I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned.  I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically.  No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.

Now:   am I thick?  (No need to answer that one - please)
           naive?
           vague?  (that is possible)

I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach.  I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.

Some people here have a habit of cornering others, and get frustrated when they can't get them to agree with them, the atheists here especially.

I think you are right when you say in another post, it is a matter of perception.

Looking on, it can look like some posters here are ganging up on other posters, and who thinks who is ganging up on who,  is also interpreted.

Your posts are fine Brownie, and I like your approach.

You usually give posters the benefit of the doubt if they post something which could be taken in another way 

 

[Stranger]

Atheism is a lack of belief, a lack of faith, not a positive faith in the lack of deities.  There is a difference.

Exactly; you don't need faith to not believe something you just need to be unconvinced by arguments and (purported) evidence presented for it.

I find almost all god stories monumentally unconvincing.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

What sort of evidence would be acceptable to you?

Photos can be easily dismissed as fakes.

As an agnostic atheist i don't have clue what evidence you could provide for the divine. You would need a methodology for evaluating such claims.

It is not me who is making the claim so there is no onus on me to provide anything.

I agree that photos can be faked. However I don't really see the relavence as I have not requsted any.

out of curiosity what is it you think I might like a photo of?

[Bubbles]

As an agnostic atheist i don't have clue what evidence you could provide for the divine. You would need a methodology for evaluating such claims.

It is not me who is making the claim so there is no onus on me to provide anything.

I agree that photos can be faked. However I don't really see the relavence as I have not requsted any.

out of curiosity what is it you think I might like a photo of?

I was thinking more along the lines of proof of the supernatural. Ghosts say.

To prove it, we would have to find proof you would accept.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned.  I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically.  No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.

Now:   am I thick?  (No need to answer that one - please)
           naive?
           vague?  (that is possible)

I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach.  I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.

They are not just views though thet are very specific claims. It is not up to us to verify or disprove his claims. That is his job but one he always evades.

Hence the accusations of hypocrisy.

[Sassy]

If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? Making their existence merely a matter of faith is crazy in the extreme, and cruel if lack of faith has consequences!

It is clear that you neither want to believe and fear nothing of the consequences.
What does it matter to you? Surely, if you really wanted to know the truth then you would do as Christ told you.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.

So many dogmas, doctrines and sects have sprung up attributed to Christianity, some more bonkers than others. People make assertions about what god and Jesus are thinking, when the truth of the matter is they can have no idea, lacking any evidence to back up their claims.

Whoosh! one foul swoop and you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
What did Christ say... "If you obey my words you will know if the teachings come from myself or not"
Christ has told you what you need to know. You have chosen to disregard. Truth is that you don't want to know.
You see, you need to read those words and obey then you will know as Christ said where his words come from.

The most credible explanation is that god has never existed in reality, but was created by humans, and is continuously reinvented by those with vivid imaginations.

This is not about evidence... it isn't about God or Christ and their existence or even sincerely seeking the truth.
It is all about your own way of thinking and your way of thinking lacks any evidence to support what you are attempting to say.
It lacks because you don't know what Christ has said and never obeyed him. This is all about you wanting to put what you think forward to others but it lacks any tangible truth or even logical reasoning. You have not thought it out, you have not studied the word or Christ. You have done nothing but express an opinion based on nothing but your own personal thought and lacking any foundation in what it means for God to exist.

As for Jesus, who supposedly popped up to heaven after his resurrection and has stayed out of sight ever since, it is much more likely when he was executed he stayed dead! The guy's death was very unpleasant if he was crucified, but he was a bit of a WUM, where the religious mafia of the day were concerned. It is strange his family didn't seem to rate him much according to the gospel of St John.

How does the writings of John which concentrate more on what Christ actually said than did (unlike the other three gospels the
Synoptic which concentrated on more of what he did and basically say the same things) show his family not rating him?
If you are going to repeat what you read on other sites or writings of others at least check them out, first.

So why would a 'loving' god not ensure that no one had any doubt that it existed?

What has a loving God to do with you being allowed to find him for yourself have to do with anything?
You cannot be taken seriously because even the easiest of questions to answer from the bible itself are lost on you.
No one who has any knowledge of faith, free-will, freedom to choose, Sin, the World and the devil. Would actually be asking such questions in the first instance. The knowledge they would have gleamed from the bible would have explained that.

[BeRational]

Fair enough - to each their own.

I just do not like having my religioous beliefs abused by those of other religions, while being roundly condemned if I do the same to them.

The one thing that really gets me is the fact that they are terminally incapable of admitting that, like mine and everybody elses, their religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT OF FACT!

I include in the above the atheists of the world who put their FAITH in the likelyhood that the various deities do not, IN FACT, exist.

Atheists by and large do NOT do that though as that is NOT atheism.

[floo]

Excuse my French but FUCKING HELL!! - talk bout the pot calling the kettle black!

This comment coming from you Hope is the highest possible pinnacle of hypocrisy!

It gobsmacking isn't it? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black where Hope is concerned!

[floo]

It is clear that you neither want to believe and fear nothing of the consequences.
What does it matter to you? Surely, if you really wanted to know the truth then you would do as Christ told you.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.



Whoosh! one foul swoop and you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
What did Christ say... "If you obey my words you will know if the teachings come from myself or not"
Christ has told you what you need to know. You have chosen to disregard. Truth is that you don't want to know.
You see, you need to read those words and obey then you will know as Christ said where his words come from.
This is not about evidence... it isn't about God or Christ and their existence or even sincerely seeking the truth.
It is all about your own way of thinking and your way of thinking lacks any evidence to support what you are attempting to say.
It lacks because you don't know what Christ has said and never obeyed him. This is all about you wanting to put what you think forward to others but it lacks any tangible truth or even logical reasoning. You have not thought it out, you have not studied the word or Christ. You have done nothing but express an opinion based on nothing but your own personal thought and lacking any foundation in what it means for God to exist.

How does the writings of John which concentrate more on what Christ actually said than did (unlike the other three gospels the
Synoptic which concentrated on more of what he did and basically say the same things) show his family not rating him?
If you are going to repeat what you read on other sites or writings of others at least check them out, first.






What has a loving God to do with you being allowed to find him for yourself have to do with anything?
You cannot be taken seriously because even the easiest of questions to answer from the bible itself are lost on you.
No one who has any knowledge of faith, free-will, freedom to choose, Sin, the World and the devil. Would actually be asking such questions in the first instance. The knowledge they would have gleamed from the bible would have explained that.

Sass you and the truth are remote!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I was thinking more along the lines of proof of the supernatural. Ghosts say.

To prove it, we would have to find proof you would accept.

t


You would need a specific example and a methodology to show that something non naturalistic had occured.

re ghosts. I don't doubt people have experienced ghosts. I have had such an experience myself. i saw someone in a room who could not have been there. Some people might say well there you go that proves an after life. However, i see no reason why that follows and so it just remains unexplained.

[Leonard James]

i saw someone in a room who could not have been there. Some people might say well there you go that proves an after life.

Nobody with an atom of common sense would say such a thing.

However, i see no reason why that follows and so it just remains unexplained.

Unexplained? Millions of people have 'seen' ghosts, as well as a variety of other bizarre things. The explanation is obvious ... the brain is quite capable of producing illusions. It does so every time you dream.

[floo]

Nobody with an atom of common sense would say such a thing.

Unexplained? Millions of people have 'seen' ghosts, as well as a variety of other bizarre things. The explanation is obvious ... the brain is quite capable of producing illusions. It does so every time you dream.

I agree, my brain has played those sort of tricks a good few times!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

[quote author =Leonard James link=topic=11736.msg598524#msg598524 date=1458215135]
Nobody with an atom of common sense would say such a thing.

Unexplained? Millions of people have 'seen' ghosts, as well as a variety of other bizarre things. The explanation is obvious ... the brain is quite capable of producing illusions. It does so every time you dream.
[/quote]

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick here.

I was not supporting any supernatural phenomena I was simply pointing  out that lot,s of people experience what seems like supernatural phenomena but that does not give them the right jump to supernatural conclusions.

And I will stick with unexplained because I can think of other mundane explanations than just illusion.

[Hope]

You would need a specific example and a methodology to show that something non naturalistic had occured.

I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen.  However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument. 

There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined. 

However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen.  However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument. 

There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined. 

However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.

When have I ever asked for a naturalistic method. Show me?

I have made this point several times. I don't care what the method is as long as it can distinguish between likely true and likely untrue claims.

I don't think I can make it any simpler.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen.  However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument. 

There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined. 

However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.

Well go for it then, give the example and the methodology. In your own time it's not like you have kept us waiting or anything.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument. 

I am the only one here who finds this deeply deeply dishonest?

Brownie, you could not understand why he was accused of hypocrisy. Can you see why now?

[Gordon]

I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen.  However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument.

Here you are undone by your own words: how could you tell something occurred 'without recourse to naturalistic means' without a method to actually exclude the naturalistic in the first place? Seems to me you aren't applying reason to what you yourself propose.

There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined.

Super; what are the details?

However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.

Hard to say since you seemingly don't want to set out the details.

[Hope]

When have I ever asked for a naturalistic method. Show me?

I have made this point several times. I don't care what the method is as long as it can distinguish between likely true and likely untrue claims.

I don't think I can make it any simpler.

Well, I believe that the recording of information that is now recognised as an indicator of death - the outpouring of both blood and 'water' is one important piece of evidence.  Secondly, the sighting of a person who had been declared dead by the authorities, in a live form some days after that acknowledged death is another piece of evidence that has to be taken into account.  Obviously, these are both naturalistic outcomes of a supernatural event - and therein lies the rub.  How does one verify a supernatural event without taking the natural outcomes that accompany it into account?  Throwing doubt on these outcomes is a common practice but in no way does that doubt invalidate the events. 

I am currently reading Bart Ehrman's book 'How Jesus Became God'.  In his first chapter, he seeks to show that there were plenty of 'virgin-bith' like events recorded in and around the time period of 300BC to 20AD; similarly there were a number of after-death appearances.  The problem with this first chapter is that he makes it clear on more than one occasion, that the Jewish way of thinking as regards deity was very different to that of all the other people-groups in the area.  Yet, he then tries to superimpoise the principles that come from studying all these other people-groups onto this one particular people-group from whih the Jesus story emerged.

Another thing he uses is the fact that in ancient times, there was no division between what we would call secular and sacred.  Everything is part of a whole.  However, he then argues that the division that we now have came about once the Christian church began to develop some level of influence on society - which, as far as dating is concerned, is probably true. Towards the end of this first chapter, under the title 'Jesus and the Divine Realm, Erhart writes

By the time of the 4th Christian century, some 300 years after Jesus lived, when the empire was in the proces of converting from paganism to Christianity - many of the great thinkers of the Roman world had come to believe that a huge chasm separated the divine and human realms.  God was 'up there' and was the Almighty.  He alone was God.  There were no other gods and so there was no continuum of divinity.  There was just us down here, the lowly sinners, and God up there, the supreme sovereign over all that is.

Jesus mimself eventually came to be thought of as belonging not down here with us, but up there with God.  He himself was Gpd, with a capital G.  But how could he be God, if God was God and there were not a number of gods, not even two gods, but only one God.  How could Jesus be God and God be God and yet there only be one God? ... the more pressing and immediate question is about how this percetion started in the first place.  How did Jesus move from being a human being to being God - in any sense?

Ehrman, B.: 2015. How Jesus Became God HarperOne, New York (Paperback edition) p.43.

I believe that there are some serious flaws, both of reason and historicity, in this passage.  For one thing, even if we assume that Genesis 1-11 is a 6th/5th Century BC theological treatise, the idea that the Jewish God was a monolithic entity didn't hold water.  After all, God is reported as saying, 'Let us make (man) in our own image'.  The "royal 'we'"?  Possibly, since the idea existed prior to the time of Christ; but not necessarily, since the material starts off talking about the 'Spirit of God ... hovering over the waters' and goes on to talk about 'making man and woman in his image', suggesting a multifaceted nature to a single God.

Secondly, the dividing of the divine and the human came 300-odd years after Jesus.  During those 300 years, the idea that Jesus was here was very much part of the understanding of his divinity.  He is reported as saying that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is at hand (or here).  Yes some flet that this was said in a temporal context; others in a 'spacial' one.  I'm not sure that only one or the other is a correct reading.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well, I believe that the recording of information that is now recognised as an indicator of death - the outpouring of both blood and 'water' is one important piece of evidence.  Secondly, the sighting of a person who had been declared dead by the authorities, in a live form some days after that acknowledged death is another piece of evidence that has to be taken into account.  Obviously, these are both naturalistic outcomes of a supernatural event - and therein lies the rub.  How does one verify a supernatural event without taking the natural outcomes that accompany it into account? 

Whoa whoa whoa.

You quote these claims as fact.

You need to establish them as a fact before we proceed.

Throwing doubt on these outcomes is a common practice but in no way does that doubt invalidate the events. 

in your wildest dreams

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Can  I also enquire into where the methodology is? It just seems like bad history and convoluted logic to me. In other words naturalistic methods done badly.

[Gordon]

Well, I believe that the recording of information that is now recognised as an indicator of death

Only by suitably qualified people on inspection of the body, where corroboration is required where cremation is intended - so it isn't a process consisting only of anecdote.

- the outpouring of both blood and 'water' is one important piece of evidence.

Only if you are qualified to make a clinical judgment, where 'blood' and 'water' would br inadequate as a cause of death unless the underlying basis for confirming clinical death were provided.

Secondly, the sighting of a person who had been declared dead by the authorities, in a live form some days after that acknowledged death is another piece of evidence that has to be taken into account.

Two problems here: that the person was actually dead, and you only have anecdotes to this effect, and that this person was seen post-death, where again there is just anecdote from potentially biased sources.

Ohbviously, these are both naturalistic outcomes of a supernatural event - and therein lies the rub.  How does one verify a supernatural event without taking the natural outcomes that accompany it into account?  Throwing doubt on these outcomes is a common practice but in no way does that doubt invalidate the events. 

Yes it does, since you haven't excluded naturalistic explanation such as human artifice: remember if you discard naturalistic options without provide an explanation of how you did so the burden of proof in favour of the supernatural is yours.

I am currently reading Bart Ehrman's book 'How Jesus Became God'.  In his first chapter, he seeks to show that there were plenty of 'virgin-bith' like events recorded in and around the time period of 300BC to 20AD; similarly there were a number of after-death appearances.  The problem with this first chapter is that he makes it clear on more than one occasion, that the Jewish way of thinking as regards deity was very different to that of all the other people-groups in the area.  Yet, he then tries to superimpoise the principles that come from studying all these other people-groups onto this one particular people-group from whih the Jesus story emerged.

Does he actually address the problem of how supernatural claim should be assessed? If not, then this digression is of no relevance.

Another thing he uses is the fact that in ancient times, there was no division between what we would call secular and sacred.  Everything is part of a whole.  However, he then argues that the division that we now have came about once the Christian church began to develop some level of influence on society - which, as far as dating is concerned, is probably true. Towards the end of this first chapter, under the title 'Jesus and the Divine Realm, Erhart writes
Ehrman, B.: 2015. How Jesus Became God HarperOne, New York (Paperback edition) p.43.

Even more super: but how does this help with how we assess supernatural claims?

I believe that there are some serious flaws, both of reason and historicity, in this passage.  For one thing, even if we assume that Genesis 1-11 is a 6th/5th Century BC theological treatise, the idea that the Jewish God was a monolithic entity didn't hold water.  After all, God is reported as saying, 'Let us make (man) in our own image'.  The "royal 'we'"?  Possibly, since the idea existed prior to the time of Christ; but not necessarily, since the material starts off talking about the 'Spirit of God ... hovering over the waters' and goes on to talk about 'making man and woman in his image', suggesting a multifaceted nature to a single God.

Secondly, the dividing of the divine and the human came 300-odd years after Jesus.  During those 300 years, the idea that Jesus was here was very much part of the understanding of his divinity.  He is reported as saying that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is at hand (or here).  Yes some flet that this was said in a temporal context; others in a 'spacial' one.  I'm not sure that only one or the other is a correct reading.

So you are no nearer to providing a method that is appropriate to identifying supernatural interventions - no matter how interesting this ramble though cultural theology is you aren't addressing what some here have been asking you. So I'll ask again, how have you methodologically discounted the risks of mistake or fiction in the accounts you mention.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Exactly, it's just bad history and logic.