Share your evidence for Christianity

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Can you empirically prove that all valid evidence is empirical in nature.
Again, you're framing things in a way designed to create a contradiction when none actually is necessary, as I've shown in my post #11. Perhaps you could just challenge one of my premises from my post #11? There could be hidden assumptions or premises in my post #11, even though I tried to flesh all of them out.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Question: How do you prove if your observation is correct without empirical evidence? For example, I observe the world around me and determine that the world is flat and the Sun circles the Earth. That is consistent with my observation. It is also completely wrong.
By the way, ancillary to the main point here: Wittgenstein once commented on how obvious it was just by looking up at the sky that the sun went around the earth by asking, "What would it look like if the earth went around the sun?" That's a great example of thinking logically about observations.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Again, you're framing things in a way designed to create a contradiction when none actually is necessary, as I've shown in my post #11. Perhaps you could just challenge one of my premises from my post #11? There could be hidden assumptions or premises in my post #11, even though I tried to flesh all of them out.
 

Tiburon

Active member
The uneducated atheists just can't connect the dots.

This is the year 2020.

2020 years since the time of Jesus.
The uneducated Christian doesn't seem to understand what the year 2020 denotes.
Or perhaps they don't understand what "since the time of Jesus" means.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
By the way, ancillary to the main point here: Wittgenstein once commented on how obvious it was just by looking up at the sky that the sun went around the earth by asking, "What would it look like if the earth went around the sun?" That's a great example of thinking logically about observations.
Ah - I see what you are saying. However, my original point was that we can only ground empiricism with empirical evidence. Wittgenstein's comment shows that logic is not a great foundation for truth - our observations backed by logic alone are often wrong. Observation backed by logic alone will also lead you to conclude that the Earth is flat.

If you want to know if the sun orbits the Earth then the best way is empirical evidence. And the more empirical evidence we have the more sure we can be that something is real. So I do think that empiricism requires empirical evidence - there is not other way to ground truth.
 

Torin

Active member
Ah - I see what you are saying. However, my original point was that we can only ground empiricism with empirical evidence. Wittgenstein's comment shows that logic is not a great foundation for truth - our observations backed by logic alone are often wrong. Observation backed by logic alone will also lead you to conclude that the Earth is flat.

If you want to know if the sun orbits the Earth then the best way is empirical evidence. And the more empirical evidence we have the more sure we can be that something is real. So I do think that empiricism requires empirical evidence - there is not other way to ground truth.
How are you distinguishing between "observation" and "empirical evidence?" Could you define those terms and give examples of each?
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
How are you distinguishing between "observation" and "empirical evidence?" Could you define those terms and give examples of each?
Sure. Observation is empirical evidence. However, it is only a single piece of empirical evidence so we need more before we say something is likely or very likely to be true

This is why 'belief' is not a binary yes or no in scientific terms. We do not believe or disbelieve in gravity. We say that gravity is very likely to be true. Nothing is 100%.

To expand on that, we can say, "based on the extensive empirical evidence we have from different sources, methodologies, senses, and testing methods it seems very likely that the Newtonian/Einsteinian description of gravity seems to be accurate - but we could be wrong pending more evidence."

Belief is directly proportional to the quality, diversity, and amount of empirical evidence. Less evidence = less confident belief. More evidence = more confident belief.

However, in normal conversation, we simplify this to, "I believe in gravity."

So if you say the sun goes around the Earth based on your observation then that is a belief based on empirical evidence. We might say, "it seems like the sun goes around the Earth, but since I only have this single observation I cannot say for sure without more evidence."

And there is always, always, the assumption that we could be completely wrong :)
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Some people have pushed back on me saying I do not honestly consider the evidence for God and Jesus presented here. I think you might be right. So I thought I'd make a fresh start. What evidence is there that I am failing to consider?

I must say that I only consider empirical evidence when trying to figure out what is real (per the wildly successful scientific method). That is evidence we can see, measure, and test. An example of empirical evidence for God might be manna dropped from the sky or the sun turning to sack cloth. We can see, measure, and test those.

Sadly personal testimony, ancient unverifiable texts, and faith are not empirical evidence for miracles.

I can start us off. The oldest empirical evidence I know of for Jesus is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible. The oldest scrap of the NT is Unical 0189. Sadly the Codex was created 300 years after Jesus and nothing in it can be verified so it is not very compelling empirical evidence for claims of miracles. And Unical 0189 does not mention Jesus at all.

So - what evidence do you have that I am not considering?
Hello, this is bruisermiller from the Old Forum. Since we had the opportunity to create new Usernames, I was able to claim the Username ReverendRV; it is also my Pen Name. I will be wanting to write a Gospel Tract on the Euthyphro Dilemma about how it might be used as evidence FOR Christianity. I was wondering if this would be a good Thread to test that notion, but you said you only want to discuss Empiricism. I wanted to discuss my notion on someone else's Thread, to keep me from getting too many notifications; because obviously every Atheist would chime in, and my notifications would be like a nest full of Chicks constantly peeping for a bite of the worm (you can probably tell it's me by my use of the Idiom). ~ Let me know if I should hunt for another Thread to discuss the notion...
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
P1 - We presuppose the three laws of logic.
P2 - We seek to understand the nature of reality (= how the universe works, = what is real, etc.).
P3 - One possible way to accomplish P2 is to first observe reality, and then to think logically about those observations.
P4 - When we try P3, we see that it is reliable.
P5 - When we try anything other than P3, we see that it is not reliable.

All we need is to presuppose logic, adopt the goal of understanding the world, try some approaches, and we then see which methods tell us accurately about reality. No need to ground a belief in empiricism empirically in any of that.

Now, you can disagree with P1, P2, P4, or P5 (P3 isn't really a claim to disagree with, I think), but that's a different conversation from whether empiricism needs to be grounded empirically. It doesn't.
Hey Gus. I won't spend much time arguing this, but because of who you are I wanted to know why your P1 is that the existence of the Laws of Logic is an A Priori Presupposition, instead of the Laws of Logic being an A Posteriori Discovery?
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Well-known member
Ah - I see what you are saying. However, my original point was that we can only ground empiricism with empirical evidence. Wittgenstein's comment shows that logic is not a great foundation for truth - our observations backed by logic alone are often wrong. Observation backed by logic alone will also lead you to conclude that the Earth is flat.

If you want to know if the sun orbits the Earth then the best way is empirical evidence. And the more empirical evidence we have the more sure we can be that something is real. So I do think that empiricism requires empirical evidence - there is not other way to ground truth.
Is there empirical evidence that clearly shows God wasn't involved in our (alll) creation?
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Hello, this is bruisermiller from the Old Forum. Since we had the opportunity to create new Usernames, I was able to claim the Username ReverendRV; it is also my Pen Name. I will be wanting to write a Gospel Tract on the Euthyphro Dilemma about how it might be used as evidence FOR Christianity. I was wondering if this would be a good Thread to test that notion, but you said you only want to discuss Empiricism. I wanted to discuss my notion on someone else's Thread, to keep me from getting too many notifications; because obviously every Atheist would chime in, and my notifications would be like a nest full of Chicks constantly peeping for a bite of the worm (you can probably tell it's me by my use of the Idiom). ~ Let me know if I should hunt for another Thread to discuss the notion...
I'm happy to discuss anything. I do not know what the Euthyphro Dilemma is but I am happy to hear your thoughts, I'll read it, and discuss it. Sounds fun.

However, if it is not empirical evidence that can be tested at multiple labs all over the world then I will not consider it to be evidence of God. That does not mean we cannot discuss something interesting. However, I want to set expectations. I don't want you to think that a logic argument or philosophical idea will convince me that Jesus rose from the dead.

The only thing that will convince me personally that any god is real is testable, verifiable, empirical evidence. But I do love a good epistemology discussion :)
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Ah - I see what you are saying. However, my original point was that we can only ground empiricism with empirical evidence. Wittgenstein's comment shows that logic is not a great foundation for truth - our observations backed by logic alone are often wrong. Observation backed by logic alone will also lead you to conclude that the Earth is flat.

If you want to know if the sun orbits the Earth then the best way is empirical evidence. And the more empirical evidence we have the more sure we can be that something is real. So I do think that empiricism requires empirical evidence - there is not other way to ground truth.
"our observations backed by logic alone are often wrong. Observation backed by logic alone will also lead you to conclude that the Earth is flat."

Logic says that if the earth is flat ..Polaris..would not move towards the horizon the further south you go.

So perhaps it depends upon what is put into the equation.

So what is the evidence?
Some people have witnessed miracles. Healings and such. This might not prove there is a God...but, it says much.

Prophecy is yet another example. Isaiah 53 contains much accurate prophecy. If you understand M,M, L and J you can easily see how isiah 53 (and other prophecy) foretold the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. Prophecy also tells of the return of Christ and the events that surround it...but for now well have to wait and see.

Extremely complex organelle in our cells...and I do mean extremely complex...point to a intelligent designer. But, does that point to who the designer is? No. But we can know they are not a product of random chance mutations.

We also know the current timeline is somewhat messed up. Biomaterial found in fossils dated to 65+ MY's have been discovered..as technology advances...Scientist are currently scratching their heads as to how it could possible be preserved. Their paradigm is shifting. Each year it becomes more and more evident there was a world wide food. Many scientist deny it because the bible calles for one. Kind of a strange reason to reject the science that clearly supports a world wide flood.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Is there empirical evidence that clearly shows God wasn't involved in our (alll) creation?
If someone claimed that they knew for a fact that God was not involved in creation then we would ask them to prove that - yes. I personally do not claim this. I think it is very possible that a god was involved - I cannot prove it either way. So I just say, "I see no reason to believe a god was involved without evidence - but it is possible."

If we go your way then we would need to prove that Zeus was not involved in the creation of the universe. We'd need to prove that Brahma was not involved. And Coatlicue, Hanuman, Odin, Durga, Mahavira, Osiris, Huitzilopochtli, and Ahura Mazda.

It seems more reasonable, and practical, to ask anyone who claims their god was involved in creation than to have to disprove any god that any human has ever claimed.

Russel's Teapot and all that :)
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Ah - I see what you are saying. However, my original point was that we can only ground empiricism with empirical evidence. Wittgenstein's comment shows that logic is not a great foundation for truth - our observations backed by logic alone are often wrong. Observation backed by logic alone will also lead you to conclude that the Earth is flat.
1. Grounding empiricism with empirical evidence is circular. My post #11 shows the way around that.

2. Wittgenstein's comment is not one about logic, I think. It's more about the need to explore all options and not just take what appears to be obvious. The idea that the sun goes around the earth because that's exactly what it looks like is not a conclusion based on logic (I'm not saying it's illogical) as much as it is based on just the raw sense perception. It just looks exactly like the sun goes around the earth. Same for the earth being flat.
If you want to know if the sun orbits the Earth then the best way is empirical evidence.
Wanting to know some specific conclusion is a bad starting place.
. . . . So I do think that empiricism requires empirical evidence - there is not other way to ground truth.
But that's a poor way to frame the issue, because of the circularity, as I said above.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Hey Gus. I won't spend much time arguing this, but because of who you are I wanted to know why your P1 is that the existence of the Laws of Logic is an A Priori Presupposition, instead of the Laws of Logic being an A Posteriori Discovery?
I'm not aware that they were discovered. Until such time as we understand (discover?) that they were discovered, the other way to get them on the table is to presuppose them.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I'm happy to discuss anything. I do not know what the Euthyphro Dilemma is but I am happy to hear your thoughts, I'll read it, and discuss it. Sounds fun.

However, if it is not empirical evidence that can be tested at multiple labs all over the world then I will not consider it to be evidence of God. That does not mean we cannot discuss something interesting. However, I want to set expectations. I don't want you to think that a logic argument or philosophical idea will convince me that Jesus rose from the dead.

The only thing that will convince me personally that any god is real is testable, verifiable, empirical evidence. But I do love a good epistemology discussion :)
Fair enough; I wanted to ask permission first before it could possibly take over your Thread. Perhaps Gus will be someone I can focus on; I'll have to admit I won't answer everyone because it would be too much to handle...
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I'm not aware that they were discovered. Until such time as we understand (discover?) that they were discovered, the other way to get them on the table is to presuppose them.
Thanks; I'll drop it and focus on the topic I would like to discuss...
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
If someone claimed that they knew for a fact that God was not involved in creation then we would ask them to prove that - yes. I personally do not claim this. I think it is very possible that a god was involved - I cannot prove it either way. So I just say, "I see no reason to believe a god was involved without evidence - but it is possible."

If we go your way then we would need to prove that Zeus was not involved in the creation of the universe. We'd need to prove that Brahma was not involved. And Coatlicue, Hanuman, Odin, Durga, Mahavira, Osiris, Huitzilopochtli, and Ahura Mazda.

It seems more reasonable, and practical, to ask anyone who claims their god was involved in creation than to have to disprove any god that any human has ever claimed.

Russel's Teapot and all that :)
I suppose you can say that..but it's based upon ignorance. You can choose ignorance if you like.

But the facts show that the bible contains the truth..contains the claim...and backs itself up. Yes, you can be ignorant to that, it's your right. Biblical prophecy alone should be able to convince you, but, you don't have ears to hear.

What does that mean? It means you can continue to present baseless arguments....and not know you're doing it.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Could the Euthyphro Dilemma be evidence for Christianity?

The following is something I Posted on YouTube to an Atheist who raised the Euthyphro Dilemma as a reason that God is not the source of Morality...

"If I were an Atheist, I would say that Morality came from the 'First Person'; and Christians would have to agree with that, since God is the first person. The debate has to then back up to an Apology for the existence of God. As a Christian, I WOULD spend some time arguing for Morality coming from/beginning with the First Person; and getting the Atheist to side with this notion because they can see the benefit in using the notion to their advantage in a Debate. Then I'd work toward showing the Atheist why God is the first person; and if I did a good job, the Atheist would be boxed in. ~ I would show that the Euthyphro Objection is solved in two ways; by the 'personhood' of God in Jesus Christ, and by using the notion Jesus Christ is our Mediator between God and Man. Since Plato teaches that if Christ gave a Command, it's based on the reason for the Command instead of on God. This objection fails because God is the reason that the Second Man Jesus Christ gave us the Command!"

Biblically speaking there is the Law of God and the Law of Christ. When Jesus gives us the Royal Law/the Law of Christ, the reason is not in and of him but is in the reason; God his Father. The Euthyphro Dilemma rests on the Objectivity of the Reason instead of the God/gods who accept the reason; so those who rely on Subjective Morality have to admit an Objective Morality exists when they depend on the Euthyphro Dilemma; because the dilemma is based on an Objective Reason instead of an Objective God. If the Reason is not Objectively Good, then there is no Euthyphro Dilemma in the first place. Whether the Reason is Objective due to knowledge and Practice of the Moral/Ethic, or it is Objective because the Reason is Good in and of itself; it has to be Objective enough for God/gods to like it. ~ Sorry for the Rabbit Trail concerning Objective Morality. The reason the Euthyphro Dilemma is evidence for Christianity is because of the Doctrine of the Trinity and because of the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, IE Jesus Christ is God and he is Man; Unmixed and Indivisible. Morality comes from the First Person or begins with the First Person. Jesus is the Second Adam/Person. Jesus is Human and his Moral/Ethic came from a Reason outside of himself; IE God, so his Reason is Objective and from God...
 
Last edited:
Top