Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Dubious]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

Your last clause is contradictory and something every theist routinely never fails to mention. It provides its own non sequitur.

To believe 'there is no god' is based on a probability which almost amounts to a certainty and hardly requires any belief at all. That it can't be proven God doesn't exist - and I'm not talking about some ethnic Jesus here - resides ONLY on a formality of logic which cannot disprove the existence of an entity for which there was never ANY proof or probability of proof to begin with. It's a 'formality' only because logic cannot defeat or finalize a negation for which there was never the slightest evidence of existence. It resolves to a type of paradox completely impervious to logic inferring it requires the function of belief to transcend these unresolvable dichotomies. As a theist, that's your job. If not true then what is belief for? The so-called atheist conversely defaults to a conclusion most in tune with historical narrative, science and with the kind of logic which doesn't cross it's own Event Horizon being sucked into believing the unbelievable.

[Dalek Prime]

I believe that you are correct that any religion could fail in terms of evidence, but that doesn't seem to stop millions or billions of people from believing. So what is the basis for denying religion at all, other than a lack of empirical proof, that seems to be a very poor basis for not believing in something that doesn't claim to have empirical proof in the first place.

It claims witnesses, does it not? May we question the veracity of fallible humans, and those who reported it for posterity? Would that be fair, doc?

To be honest, that is my main concern; human fallibility of recording the events as given.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. I haven't waded through the whole thread. And to be honest, I don't understand why he chose to focus only on one religion. Do the other faiths pass his test, whatever test that may be?

It's not really applicable. Other faiths don't claim that Jesus was resurrected, and that's what his "argument" attempts to address.

I 've read the Koran, the Gita, the Dhammapada, and the Tao, and of course, the Torah. With the exception of that last one, they're quite different from anything in Christianity. People who tell you that "all world religions teach essentially the same thing" just betray they don't know anything about world religions. They wouldn't make the same claims, so can't really be tested on any basis the original poster offers.

[Dalek Prime]

Fair enough. I haven't waded through the whole thread. And to be honest, I don't understand why he chose to focus only on one religion. Do the other faiths pass his test, whatever test that may be?

It's not really applicable. Other faiths don't claim that Jesus was resurrected, and that's what his "argument" attempts to address.

I 've read the Koran, the Gita, the Dhammapada, and the Tao, and of course, the Torah. With the exception of that last one, they're quite different from anything in Christianity. People who tell you that "all world religions teach essentially the same thing" just betray they don't know anything about world religions. They wouldn't make the same claims, so can't really be tested on any basis the original poster offers.

I hear you. In fairness, I was referring to the Abrahamic faiths, and should have clarified.

[Immanuel Can]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

Your last clause is contradictory and something every theist routinely never fails to mention. It provides its own non sequitur.

Not true, of course. While it's true that some beliefs require more evidence than others, there is no belief that requires NO evidence. And the confident claim, "There is no God" would require such a vast body of evidence to justify that there is no probabilistic chance Atheists could ever do it.

Thus they believe what they believe on pure faith...a faith so blind and complete that it simply evades its responsibility to prove, rather than even attempting it. They have not a single reason capable of justifying the strong claim of certainly of God's non-existence that Atheism automatically entails.

We can forgive the assertion, "I don't know if there is a God" (Agnosticism) since it's merely a personal claim. It's as routine as saying, "I don't know Donald Trump": it's probably honest, but doesn't suggest someone else couldn't know Trump if their circumstances were different from one's own. We can even forgive the claim, "I don't know any evidence for God," even though in today's information-rich world there is no longer any reason why anyone should voluntarily remain ignorant of the evidence. Or if the skeptic says, "I personally don't know God," we can even agree wholeheartedly: but that doesn't tell us whether or not he COULD know God, if he were open to the possibility.

But how can we forgive the obviously absurd statement, "I KNOW there is no God?" Yet any more modest claim falls short of being Atheism, and becomes some sort of strongly asserted Agnosticism only.

Atheism, then is inherently and obviously irrational.

[Immanuel Can]

I hear you. In fairness, I was referring to the Abrahamic faiths, and should have clarified.

I guess that means Judaism and Christianity. Islam calls itself "Abrahamic," but argues (without a single stitch of textual evidence, I might add) that the Torah is "corrupt" and has been altered, so that it does not hold to anything Judaism (or Christianity) would have reason to recognize as "Abrahamic." You can see that if you compare the Torah to the Koran's "Abraham."

Judaism, at least modern-day Judaism, does not generally accept either resurrection or Jesus Christ, although the textual evidence of the Torah is very clear that Abraham, David and other great Jewish figures most certainly did believe in the afterlife. The ancient Pharisees are also recorded as being believers in resurrection, but the Sadducees apparently denied the possibility: so by Jesus' time, there was a split in Judaism on the question.

Nowadays, most Jews I ask disavow any belief in afterlife or resurrection.

[Dalek Prime]

I hear you. In fairness, I was referring to the Abrahamic faiths, and should have clarified.

I guess that means Judaism and Christianity. Islam calls itself "Abrahamic," but argues (without a single stitch of textual evidence, I might add) that the Torah is "corrupt" and has been altered, so that it does not hold to anything Judaism (or Christianity) would have reason to recognize as "Abrahamic." You can see that if you compare the Torah to the Koran's "Abraham."

Judaism, at least modern-day Judaism, does not generally accept either resurrection or Jesus Christ, although the textual evidence of the Torah is very clear that Abraham, David and other great Jewish figures most certainly did believe in the afterlife. The ancient Pharisees are also recorded as being believers in resurrection, but the Sadducees apparently denied the possibility: so by Jesus' time, there was a split in Judaism on the question.

Nowadays, most Jews I ask disavow any belief in afterlife or resurrection.

Are they practicing Jews? Are they on the Reform side of Judaism? Because honestly, that surprises me.

[Dubious]

But how can we forgive the obviously absurd statement, "I KNOW there is no God?"

The statement "I KNOW there is no God?" CANNOT be asserted categorically for reasons explained. I certainly haven't made it in any of my posts. So the obviously absurd statement is your statement.

[uwot]

..the confident claim, "There is no God" would require such a vast body of evidence to justify that there is no probabilistic chance Atheists could ever do it.

I'm sure I've said this before, you need to understand the difference between these two claims:
There is no evidence for god.
There is evidence for no god.
All atheism requires is the former.

Thus they believe what they believe on pure faith...a faith so blind and complete that it simply evades its responsibility to prove, rather than even attempting it.

Don't be silly. It doesn't require any faith not to believe in your version of god, that of anybody else, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. There is no responsibility to prove that any of the above do not exist

Atheism, then is inherently and obviously irrational.

Only if you insist on a definition of 'Atheism' that very few atheists are daft enough to subscribe to, and which for some reason needs to be capitalised.

Conclusion: There isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.

Which is why the great majority of human beings born since the claimed event did not and do not believe it. Granted the argument by which this conclusion was reached isn't watertight, but your claim to have negated it by reductio ad absurdum rests on the assumption that believing a report from three minutes ago is more absurd than believing reports from two thousand years ago. Relying solely on hearsay is equally absurd on any timescale. If you wish to compare the gospels to testimony in a court of law, you need to acknowledge that it doesn't always result in conviction.
You have no grounds for believing that the difference in our opinions is the result of better acquaintance with the 'evidence', nor superior reasoning. The only difference is your wish that it be true, presumably because you fear "you'll just be forever committed to the black, null pit of Materialist extinction." As it happens, I would prefer that to an eternity of having to praise a thoroughly unpleasant being who places us in a world of sensual temptation for the sole purpose of seeing how well we resist. Two minutes at that guy's party would be too long. Funnily enough, I can't be sure of extinction; I have no idea what consciousness is, but it is part of this universe (probably). It is not impossible that it isn't extinguished with the death of the body. There is a small chance that we'll meet on the other side, perhaps I'll laugh, or maybe just pity you for wasting your one chance to enjoy being material.

[Immanuel Can]

[/quote]

Nowadays, most Jews I ask disavow any belief in afterlife or resurrection.

Are they practicing Jews? Are they on the Reform side of Judaism? Because honestly, that surprises me.

Yes, it surprised me too. I would have thought that "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," as the Torah calls Him, would clearly be affirmed by Judaism as the God of the LIVING, not of the dead. I would have thought they would consider it a blasphemy of some sort to say otherwise. But it seems they do not.

For Reformed Judaism, being as it is the most modernist group, prefers to think of a "Messianic Age" approaching, rather than an actual Messiah -- and that by the goodness and ingenuity of the human race, through its allegedly inevitable moral progress. But I would have thought that any such thought would have died at Auschwitz. Apparently not, though.

The Conservatives do likewise -- at least those I've been able to ask do -- and I'm not sure exactly where the Ultra-Orthodox stand on that, but I suspect its somewhere similar. All the Jewish people with whom I've spoken, including their community public relations people, say Judaism today rejects resurrection. Unless I'm misinformed by them, I imagine that's pretty much a general position.

But I'd love to hear from a Jewish person who had another perspective.

[Immanuel Can]

The statement "I KNOW there is no God?" CANNOT be asserted categorically for reasons explained. I certainly haven't made it in any of my posts. So the obviously absurd statement is your statement.

My apologies. I thought you were an Atheist. It seems you're merely an Agnostic.

Of course, if you are an Agnostic, then your disbelief would be absolutely no threat to anyone's faith: for "I do not believe in God" (Agnosticism) does not rationally entail any obligation for anyone else to agree. Your professed unknowing does not imply anything about anyone else's knowledge. And your lack of evidence for God does not imply no one else has any.

"None of my friends/associates/acquaintances or colleagues knows God" is only slightly better. It might just mean you have an insufficiently broad group of friends. And do not take that for an insult, please: for I freely admit that none of my friends has knowledge, evidence or proof of the Hadron Collider, and yet I naively continue to believe the thing exists, until further notice. And someone might rightly point out to me that neither my lack of evidence of the collider, nor the limited experience of my friends gave me one iota of reason to disbelieve in it.

And that's wise, of course, since you could not possibly make categorical statements about what all other people know or have. You could passionate wish it were so, of course, as anyone can. You could even think, hope and wish no one else had any information about God. But wishing would never go one rational step in the direction of suggesting it was so.

Again my apologies. Presuming, then, that you are a rational Agnostic ( and surely not just an unintellectual and reactionary one) I shall henceforth grant you the credit of being open to further evidence, should such appear.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure I've said this before, you need to understand the difference between these two claims:
There is no evidence for god.
There is evidence for no god.
All atheism requires is the former.

Atheism requires you to believe that "there is no evidence for God," you say? I'm happy with your claim. I agree wholeheartedly.

Did you ever think about it? Try plugging in any other item for "God," just to see if your procedure would be rational or not. Let's try...

"There is no evidence for Neptune."

That's a very fair example, since I freely admit I have never seen Neptune myself, nor, to my knowledge, have any of my friends, acquaintances, associates or colleagues. I freely admit to you that all I have by way of evidence for that planet is the word of some allegedly scholarly eggheads with telescopes, a few pictures in National Geographic (which may well have been altered, of course) and so on. I have no direct evidence: only the word of some people I don't really know.

Now ask yourself: would the fact of my having no evidence for Neptune be sufficient reason for me to deny Neptune's existence? Would it be reason for me to assert that none of the alleged astronomers or editors of National Geographic were more than superstitious lunatics?

I think you can easily see the unreason of your claim. Atheism is not able rationally to affirm "there IS no evidence," only "I, personally, have no evidence, nor do my skeptical friends." Meanwhile, millions claim otherwise, and by what empirical proof would Atheism assert the whole bunch of them were nothing but superstitious lunatics or liars? Atheism could WISH it, but it would be absurd to take seriously any claim it had proof for it.

In fact, "there is no evidence" is often merely the start of a claim about to be refuted. It appears in statements like, "Good grief, Mr. Galileo: there is no evidence the Sun is central to the universe," or "Codswallop, Mr. Van Leeuwenhoek: there is no evidence there are invisible 'germs' in the air."

Atheism cannot even begin to meet the basic standard of proof for "there is no _____", let alone "evidence for no God."

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm sure I've said this before, you need to understand the difference between these two claims:
There is no evidence for god.
There is evidence for no god.
All atheism requires is the former.

Atheism requires you to believe that "there is no evidence for God," you say? I'm happy with your claim. I agree wholeheartedly.

Did you ever think about it? Try plugging in any other item for "God," just to see if your procedure would be rational or not. Let's try...

"There is no evidence for Neptune."

That's a very fair example, since I freely admit I have never seen Neptune myself, nor, to my knowledge, have any of my friends, acquaintances, associates or colleagues. I freely admit to you that all I have by way of evidence for that planet is the word of some allegedly scholarly eggheads with telescopes, a few pictures in National Geographic (which may well have been altered, of course) and so on. I have no direct evidence: only the word of some people I don't really know.

Now ask yourself: would the fact of my having no evidence for Neptune be sufficient reason for me to deny Neptune's existence? Would it be reason for me to assert that none of the alleged astronomers or editors of National Geographic were more than superstitious lunatics?

I think you can easily see the unreason of your claim. Atheism is not able rationally to affirm "there IS no evidence," only "I, personally, have no evidence, nor do my skeptical friends." Meanwhile, millions claim otherwise, and by what empirical proof would Atheism assert the whole bunch of them were nothing but superstitious lunatics or liars? Atheism could WISH it, but it would be absurd to take seriously any claim it had proof for it.

In fact, "there is no evidence" is often merely the start of a claim about to be refuted. It appears in statements like, "Good grief, Mr. Galileo: there is no evidence the Sun is central to the universe," or "Codswallop, Mr. Van Leeuwenhoek: there is no evidence there are invisible 'germs' in the air."

Atheism cannot even begin to meet the basic standard of proof for "there is no _____", let alone "evidence for no God."

Your reasoning is question begging nonsense. And you are assuming about Neptune before it was discovered what it was not possible to say, and what NO ONE ever did claim. In the same way you are assuming by your example that there is already such a thing as God.
Try this:
There is no evidence for a planet between Neptune and Uranus. No matter how you look at it this can never enable the possibility of such a claim.
But your problem is much worse than that. You have not said what you thing "God" means. Until that, not only are you on poor ground, you have no ground at all upon which to stand, because the statement "there is a god" is as meaningless as "there is fucklewantoglebusst". And by your argument you cannot deny the existence of fucklewantoglebusst, like it or not.

[Immanuel Can]

Your reasoning is question begging nonsense. And you are assuming about Neptune before it was discovered what it was not possible to say, and what NO ONE ever did claim.

You are incorrect. You can easily see I am assuming nothing about Neptune, not even its real existence at the moment. I did not affirm that it did exist, nor say it did not: I left it an open question.

Now, I happen to believe it exists, but that's merely incidental. Using something in which people generally believe -- though they must admit, with no solid evidence, for most people have never actually seen Neptune -- does not rule on the side of its existence, but rather only reveals whether or not their disbelief could possibly be rational.

In other words, my critique is formal, not substantive -- a critique of inquiry methods, not of a particular proposition. It would apply no matter what the substance plugged into the critique was, whether Neptune, God or fairies. Absence of evidence is simply insufficient grounds to know whether or not anyone else has evidence. It's straightforwardly illogical, as you can see.

P.S. -- Actually, Neptune was discovered in 1846, after a great deal of debate about its existence (as early as Galileo, its existence had been suggested, but it had not been observed), so it would be untrue to say I was positing something "no one ever did claim." They did.

[Dubious]

The statement "I KNOW there is no God?" CANNOT be asserted categorically for reasons explained. I certainly haven't made it in any of my posts. So the obviously absurd statement is your statement.

My apologies. I thought you were an Atheist. It seems you're merely an Agnostic.

Of course, if you are an Agnostic, then your disbelief would be absolutely no threat to anyone's faith: for "I do not believe in God" (Agnosticism) does not rationally entail any obligation for anyone else to agree. Your professed unknowing does not imply anything about anyone else's knowledge. And your lack of evidence for God does not imply no one else has any.

"None of my friends/associates/acquaintances or colleagues knows God" is only slightly better. It might just mean you have an insufficiently broad group of friends. And do not take that for an insult, please: for I freely admit that none of my friends has knowledge, evidence or proof of the Hadron Collider, and yet I naively continue to believe the thing exists, until further notice. And someone might rightly point out to me that neither my lack of evidence of the collider, nor the limited experience of my friends gave me one iota of reason to disbelieve in it.

And that's wise, of course, since you could not possibly make categorical statements about what all other people know or have. You could passionate wish it were so, of course, as anyone can. You could even think, hope and wish no one else had any information about God. But wishing would never go one rational step in the direction of suggesting it was so.

Again my apologies. Presuming, then, that you are a rational Agnostic ( and surely not just an unintellectual and reactionary one) I shall henceforth grant you the credit of being open to further evidence, should such appear.

Sometimes in order to attempt any simulacrum of truth and allow it to speak for itself sotto voce, it becomes necessary to curtail one's excessive rationalizing which by its very nature excludes much of what should be included and vice versa. God is not a science and has never been approached as such.