Evidence for the Christian God?

[CommonEnlightenment]

I have been thinking about the type of 'evidence' that I would accept for the existence of a god (specifically the Christian one).

I think this is a good mental exercise for most atheists/agnostics. Perhaps so/Perhaps not.

Mine would go something like this:

A god would have to change every single holy bible ever written at some designated time so that all would read exactly the same thing (character for character). And then change that text back to the original forms on some other designated date (I'm thinking a solar calender year would be long enough between changes). It gives people enough time to check sources, cross reference notes and so on.

I realize that some things could go wrong and this is not a fool proof method but I feel that getting a good sample size could be preformed.



Criteria:

I would have to own 10 different 'bibles' all written in different languages so that I could personally check these.

Anyway have a little fun with this and present your own 'ideas' for possible debunking.

 

[BlackLight]

Ironically, the world today is fucked up enough that you could almost argue we're living something like the Old Testament right now. It wouldn't take much to prove God by that standard.

The biggest flaw in the Christian argument is the idea that their God gives them a world that's all sunshine and rainbows.

 

[kenandkids]

Ironically, the world today is fucked up enough that you could almost argue we're living something like the Old Testament right now. It wouldn't take much to prove God by that standard.

The biggest flaw in the Christian argument is the idea that their God gives them a world that's all sunshine and rainbows.

Not true in the least. They have made specific claims about their god and his capacity and/or prior actions. These have been consistently proven to be untrue. The world now is "sunshine and rainbows" compared to when tribes walked around slaughtering each other on grand scale (routine genocides) and used murderous rape as a dating routine. This might still occur, but no longer on a national and "god-sanctioned" scale. Our world is not 1/8 as fucked up as the biblical world.

For me I would need to have a god describe how and why he buried fossils to fool humans and how and why he left us such a spectacular geologic record that shows him to be untrue.

 

[Case]

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6991&p=102950&hilit=evidence+god#p102950

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Thank You

 

[Laurens]

If God is omnipotent then there is a whole plethora of things he could do to convince us.

Write us a message in stars, make the oceans turn into milkshake, appear on all television screens in the world at once (regardless if they are on or not), or just simply appear standing there in the sky above the earth.

The fact that things of this nature never happen is strong evidence against God. I remember back in the days of kinda half believing in God I would ask him "I'll devote my entire life to you, all you have to do is prove that you're there" of course nothing ever happened, but if there was a loving God out there I'm sure he could have done something to convince me.

 

[Demojen]

To convince me, a god would have to kill my basic capacity for reason and brain wash me.

There isn't a chance in hell that I'd ever believe in the existence of god by any criteria. This god would literally have to retard my mental capacities.

 

[Laurens]

To convince me, a god would have to kill my basic capacity for reason and brain wash me.

There isn't a chance in hell that I'd ever believe in the existence of god by any criteria. This god would literally have to retard my mental capacities.

I think personally there is a lot he could do to convince us, considering his supposed omnipotence.

Like I said he could move the stars and write 'OI FUCKWITS! GOD DOES EXIST' in the sky or something like that. That would be enough for me to believe in God, but of course something like that will never happen...

 

[Squawk]

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, there is no evidence sufficient to warrant belief in a God. Any sufficiently advanced alien could do all the things people usually cite as being sufficient to justify belief in a deity.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Yeah, I was pondering the alien technology factor and those damn aliens would require some damn extraordinary evidence.

 

[Laurens]

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, there is no evidence sufficient to warrant belief in a God. Any sufficiently advanced alien could do all the things people usually cite as being sufficient to justify belief in a deity.

God supposedly caused a virgin to conceive a child, and a dead man to rise again. If God could do those things back then, then surely he could do something similar today, ie violate the laws of nature (which presumably an alien could not do) and we would have some kind of evidence to go by.

 

[RedYellow]

The Christian God had his chance to at least provide a much better case for his existence.

He could have:

Provided the same bible to multiple cultures on Earth.

Written things in the bible about things like atoms, or what stars are, or what diseases are.

Made sure we found fossils of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures in the same strata as human beings and other modern life.

Created at least one animal that couldn't possibly have evolved, like, for example, the Crocoduck, or monkeys with bird wings.

 

[Squawk]

God supposedly caused a virgin to conceive a child, and a dead man to rise again. If God could do those things back then, then surely he could do something similar today, ie violate the laws of nature (which presumably an alien could not do) and we would have some kind of evidence to go by.

Modern science can do both of those things. Artificial insemination, and people brought back from the dead after suffering extreme cold.

To conclude that a law of nature has been violated first of all presumes perfect knowledge of that law. We don't have that, likely never will, and no way of verifying it even if it is thought to be achieved.

Tell me how I distinguish between magic and sufficiently advanced technology.

 

[Case]

God supposedly caused a virgin to conceive a child, and a dead man to rise again. If God could do those things back then, then surely he could do something similar today, ie violate the laws of nature (which presumably an alien could not do) and we would have some kind of evidence to go by.

Modern science can do both of those things. Artificial insemination, and people brought back from the dead after suffering extreme cold.

To conclude that a law of nature has been violated first of all presumes perfect knowledge of that law. We don't have that, likely never will, and no way of verifying it even if it is thought to be achieved.

Tell me how I distinguish between magic and sufficiently advanced technology.

I'd say if someone can violate the laws of thermodynamics.... that would be pretty strong evidence.

 

[Demojen]

The only thing breaking the laws of thermodynamics would be evidence for, is that the laws of thermodynamics are not laws that can not be broken. That isn't evidence for God. There is no such thing as evidence for God, because the standards for proof necessary for assuming the role of God true belies any notion of norms that can be measured against objective reasoning.

We are gods to the indigenous people throughout the world. Any perception of god is wrong the *second* someone says "that's not god" and considers an alternative.

Evidence for the Christian God can not exist, because the Christian God moves the goal post every time someone motions to define or defy it. Had people stopped moving the goal post, we'd already have it settled that the Christian God does NOT exist.

 

[Squawk]

The only thing breaking the laws of thermodynamics would be evidence for, is that the laws of thermodynamics are not laws that can not be broken.

Bing!

 

[ohcac]

I agree and disagree with some of the sentiments expressed on this topic. Some people claim that Christians present a sort of "moving the goalpost" argument with respect to the attempts at verifying the existence of God, such that any criteria become more and more vague until they are completely illusory. I don't believe this is completely the case. While there are certainly some Christians who are easily backed into a corner (and thus move the goalposts as a defense mechanism), my experience is that definite, physically verifiable truth claims are unavoidable for "hard-line" Christians. As an extreme example, the prediction of the literal truth of the Genesis story yields many predictions that are completely contrary to real, physical, empirical observation. As a less extreme example, apologists for the historicity of the resurrection give surprisingly detailed evidences attempting to outline the probability of Christ's resurrection. These arguments have detailed falsification criteria.

There is just one more oft-repeated argument that I disagree with. Many make the assertion that God could have placed scientifically modern information into his holy texts as a demonstration of his power. There are a number of problems with this hypothetical concoction: 1) A God, if authoring or inspiring a holy text, could focus on the dissemination of *absolute* truths. These are properties of the universe that are absolutely true. Our scientific models are not considered to be *absolute* truths, but as successively better approximations to the truth. So, a scientific model such as relativity or quantum mechanics is considered to be an excellent approximation to what the truth actually is, but *philosophically* the theories are incorrect. An ancient Hebrew priest, reading of a passage on the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of mass-energy, would be thoroughly confused by the such a writing. 2) Many make the above claim on the grounds that God could have been more "benevolent" by providing us with the keys to medicinal advantages. However, this assertion fails to deliver any serious philosophical blows to a structure like Christianity, because the benevolence attributed to Yahweh is highly metaphysical and has more to do with the offering of eternal life and redemption to repentant sinners than it does a sort of hand out of worldly pleasure (including medical relief from pain).

I do not find the "linguistic problem" of the Bible to be a particularly large problem for Christianity either. However, I do find the problem of the unevangelized particularly daunting for Christianity to overcome, as well as various (at least apparent) anachronisms and contradictions found in the scriptures.

 

[Demojen]

I agree and disagree with some of the sentiments expressed on this topic.

Some people claim that Christians present a sort of "moving the goalpost" argument with respect to the attempts at verifying the existence of God, such that any criteria become more and more vague until they are completely illusory. I don't believe this is completely the case. While there are certainly some Christians who are easily backed into a corner (and thus move the goalposts as a defense mechanism), my experience is that definite, physically verifiable truth claims are unavoidable for "hard-line" Christians.

Hard-line Christians like William Lane Craig will just claim their ignorance a lapse and change the focus to avoid their intellectual dishonesty being exposed.

<Hitchens> "It said in one of the Gospels that all the graves of Jerusalem were opened and all the tenants of the graves walked the streets and greeted their old friends. Do you believe that?"

<Craig> "I don't know whether Mathew intends this to be apocalyptic imagery or whether he means for it to be taken literally. I've not studied it in any depth. I'm open minded about it."

This man who stands on the position that the study of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection is one of his top priorities. When we expose these hypocrites and liars, they just bolster their defenses.

Or like VenomFangX, the Hard-line Christians will simply say you've either A)Interpreted the texts wrong or B)You are wrong about historical evidence (whether they can prove it or not).

As an extreme example, the prediction of the literal truth of the Genesis story yields many predictions that are completely contrary to real, physical, empirical observation. As a less extreme example, apologists for the historicity of the resurrection give surprisingly detailed evidences attempting to outline the probability of Christ's resurrection. These arguments have detailed falsification criteria. When falsification criteria is catered to support the argument with what could easily be re-interpreted as a false positive and affirmation of the argument, then it is not good criteria for the purpose of falsification on a claim because proponents of the original argument will just move the goal post to adjust for the exposure.

There is just one more oft-repeated argument that I disagree with. Many make the assertion that God could have placed scientifically modern information into his holy texts as a demonstration of his power. There are a number of problems with this hypothetical concoction: 1) A God, if authoring or inspiring a holy text, could focus on the dissemination of *absolute* truths. These are properties of the universe that are absolutely true. Our scientific models are not considered to be *absolute* truths, but as successively better approximations to the truth. So, a scientific model such as relativity or quantum mechanics is considered to be an excellent approximation to what the truth actually is, but *philosophically* the theories are incorrect.

An ancient Hebrew priest, reading of a passage on the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of mass-energy, would be thoroughly confused by the such a writing. 2) Many make the above claim on the grounds that God could have been more "benevolent" by providing us with the keys to medicinal advantages. However, this assertion fails to deliver any serious philosophical blows to a structure like Christianity, because the benevolence attributed to Yahweh is highly metaphysical and has more to do with the offering of eternal life and redemption to repentant sinners than it does a sort of hand out of worldly pleasure (including medical relief from pain).

What does this have to do with the veracity of claims in the bible? Not a single re-interpretation of the bible reads like a research document, nor does it provide sources.

I do not find the "linguistic problem" of the Bible to be a particularly large problem for Christianity either. However, I do find the problem of the unevangelized particularly daunting for Christianity to overcome, as well as various (at least apparent) anachronisms and contradictions found in the scriptures.

Linguistic problems with proponents of the bible are a big issue. There's are new definitions and interpretations of the bible by its proponents all of the time. Take VenomFangX, who now redefines the word Kind for its application to his interpretation of species, and get this: His definition of Kind is circular and does nothing to lend any credence to the definition whatsoever.

<Venom Fang X>"A kind is any unique kind that is unlike another kind"

So yeah, what? A kind is a kind is a kind is a kind?

 

[ohcac]

What does this have to do with the veracity of claims in the bible? Not a single re-interpretation of the bible reads like a research document, nor does it provide sources.

It has nothing to do with the veracity of claims in the Bible. I was addressing not the specific problem of providing an actual example of Biblical claims verified by some outside source, but the epistemic problem of whether such an endeavor is even possible. Some here have claimed that it is not possible, owing to some mechanism such as the "moving of the goalposts" or some other thing that places Biblical events under the blanket of unfalsifiability.

It doesn't matter whether the Bible reads like a modern research document. There is a difference between having a solid research paper with cited sources and documented empirical results and making truth claims about the universe that can be verified or falsified in principle. The two things are not mutually inclusive.

 

[Demojen]

It doesn't matter whether the Bible reads like a modern research document. There is a difference between having a solid research paper with cited sources and documented empirical results and making truth claims about the universe that can be verified or falsified in principle. The two things are not mutually inclusive.

Proponents of the bible claim that it has

A)Cited sources.
It is B)Documented empirical evidence
and C) That it's making truth claims about the universe that can be verified but not falsified.

So how does it not matter whether or not it's written in a method that decreases the likelihood of misinterpretation? It is written in metaphors and stories such that it undermines any argument and any claim within it rendering it invalid. Yet there are entire studies of theology spent drawing parallels between its statements and reality, trying to substantiate them in retrospect.

It matters, because once you eliminate the Bible as evidence for Gods decree, you eliminate the bulk of the evidence as it applies to Christianity and the whole stage of oppression that the religion stands upon to justify its antiquated, racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic dogmatic practices.