Chimpy Chompy on 5/12/2007 at 20:58

---

That's an interesting comparison. I'm pretty sure the best evidence is testable, like DNA. And, now I think about it, that's repeatable too. Grab another blood sample and see if it gives the same result.

In the case of someone's eyewitness account, you could test it by checking they have their details right. And hopefully repeat by finding another witness? Not always though I guess.



If you're not an expert on all the data, I suppose it comes down to faith in the people who ARE experts. But at least we know they exist, and we've seen the various other results of expertise, just in case someone tries to pull "lol same as faith in god". And you could theoretically become an expert yourself.



Again needs to be rigorously tested. Person comes in, doctor verifies specific ailment. Person prays, doctor checks again for change in status. Repeat with a hundred more people, all in the same hospital with the same team doing the assessing. Then you've got to ask if it's a psychological effect - does praying just put people in a better frame of mind, give them more of a will to try and recover?

SubJeff on 5/12/2007 at 21:27

---

So what evidence are you talking about if it's not tangible?

Thirith on 5/12/2007 at 22:03

---

If you're in a relationship, what proof do you have that it's love and not co-dependency and neediness? So much about people, their thoughts and emotions, is beyond physical evidence, yet we interact with the buggers on a daily basis.

Jenesis on 5/12/2007 at 23:12

---

Herein lies the crux of much of the problem, I think. Christianity does not, at its core, attempt to provide scientific evidence for the existence of God. It claims that God walked the earth, died, and rose from the dead 2000 years ago. It's putting forward historical evidence, which is a different kettle of fish. Sure, you can't put God in a test tube in a lab to check if he exists, but you can't do that to Julius Caesar, either. The Bible doesn't try to be scientific when it comes to God.

And this is a good thing, in fact. Science deals with the natural world, but if God created the world he exists outside and before it, so science is exceedingly ill-equipped to deal with the question of whether or not he exists. God, if he exists, seems to let events take their 'expected' course most of the time, which allows science to function at all, but then if he causes something else to happen, science is thrown for a loop and we have an anomaly. Trying to use science to get to grips with God is like trying to use the Hubble space telescope to observe the centre of the earth - it's a big, beefy tool that's very good at what it does, but it's by no means the right tool for the job.*

So, we have an historical claim - X happened - rather than a scientific one - X will happen every time you do Y. If you're not prepared to examine that claim, and the supporting evidence, on its own terms, you're not going to get anywhere. The Bible claims that Jesus died on a cross and rose from the dead, and provides eyewitness accounts to back this up. And Jesus fully expected these accounts to be compelling ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:28-29;&version=31;) John 20:28-29 - Thomas seeing Jesus after his resurrection). It is our natural desire to suppress the truth about God so that we can ignore him that keeps us from believing ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-20;&version=31;) Romans 1:18-20), not a lack of evidence. Thus it takes the work of God the Holy Spirit as we read the Bible to break down our rebellious nature and accept the plain, simple truth. We have all turned from God. We all deserve to be punished as rebels, without all the good things to be found in his kingdom. But to buy us back the Father sent his Son to die in our place - God took his own wrath upon himself in our place - so that those who trust in that death to rescue them can be declared right before God, and escape the punishment they deserve.


*This isn't to say that science can tell us nothing at all about God - observing the natural world is a good thing, see (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-20;&version=31;) Romans 1:18-20. The world around us allows us to know about God, though this is miles away from actually knowing God, for which we need him to come and tell us what he's like. And it turns out he's awesome.

Chimpy Chompy on 6/12/2007 at 10:27

---

My understanding is, we're pretty sure a guy called Jesus was walking around preaching 2000 years ago. We're not questioning whether or not he actually existed. But that doesn't mean we believe historical claims about the bits of his story that appear to be impossible.

You can back up claims about Julius Caesar existing from multiple sources - books, coins, art. Same as any other historical dude. We have no reason to believe it's some conspiracy about a completely made-up figure. But if someone wrote a story about him walking on water, we wouldn't automatically assume that bit has to be true too.



How? And how is that different to "knowing god"? I need to understand this bit before I tackle the rest of what you said.