Testimony as a Source of Knowledge

Who cares? They are not historians.

They were not shoddy thinkers, and would not have based their lives on something they considered to be solely hearsay.

The majority of scientists are atheists, and the most elite ones are even less likely to believe in gods.

Are they all shoddy thinkers?

1 Like

The point is, it is not about whether the Bible is hearsay or not.

I don’t understand why so much antagonism over this issue… It is factual that there is a limited amount of data available. It is opinion as to the veracity of that data.

Some will accept it and others will reject it.

Irrelevant and possibly inaccurate. There may be a correlation between data-oriented folks who reject a limited amount of data. The veracity of such has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. This is so similar to the discussion over the origin of life. Very little to look at, but people familiar with the subject matter can see their own way through.

3 Likes

I agree.

Tell it to @DaleCutler.

I was stating it to all. I think that this is an argument over whether chocolate is better than vanilla. The data is what it is. It is significant to some of us. I think that there is agreement over the details, but disagreement over the conclusions. That’s okay. It is what it is.

Atheists are often told the authors of the gospels were first hand witnesses of the events, which isn’t the case. I think we can all agree that any account can still be accurate even if they are based on hearsay. The tough part is determining if the hearsay account is true.

3 Likes

No, it is the details over which there is disagreement, as well as the conclusions.

Religious apologists think the Gospels are reliable eyewitness reports of things directly observed by the people who wrote them.

The experts disagree.

I side with the experts.

2 Likes

There is disagreement among experts.

…and this is another squabble. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

Awesome. But this is semantics, not structure. The heart of the issue is that there is a limited amount of data. I’ll grant you that there’s some disagreement whether or not certain aspects are eyewitness or heresay. But this is still not the issue for us who believe. The data shows that based upon this evidence plus the work of the Spirit of God, the church exploded. Some rejected the data (and the Spirit) then, and some do so now.

This is why the arguing is unnecessary and pointless. Because it is not the data alone that brings one to a conclusion. If one is reliant entirely upon the data, it is “foolishness.” This is why I say what I say… it is folly for me to argue you into the Kingdom. It is folly for you to argue me out of it.

When I first came here (a year or less ago), I thought that there was plenty (as in a sufficiency) of evidence for a reasonable person to believe. I misunderstood the term “evidence” and now I see that there is a sufficiency of an indication that God exists, such that one should entertain (in my opinion) the faith aspects.

The Bible says over and over that it is faith that is required. People complain that they would happily entertain the faith relationship, if only there were enough evidence to justify it. There is not. That’s changing the rules and totally depreciating the leap of faith itself. Those of us who have faith know what we are talking about. We have experienced the relationship.

Yes, we know that it sounds foolish. Sometimes it is even painful to explain. Do you not realize this? And yet we persist. Why? Because we are all insane? You can believe that. Or because we have experienced an intangible.

The heavens declare the glory of God. As does the sunset. And the ocean. And the mountains. But they are indications of his creativity, care, and love, they are not proof. God does not sign his work. He requires faith as a single step toward him.

Dale is right to say it is a squabble. It is majoring in the minors. We all need not argue over this, because it is not the main idea.

1 Like

“But they are indications…”, indications as in “evidence”, not compelling in themselves necessarily, but in the big picture, from the big bang forward to global warming and a doomed planet, not to mention the human condition, it fits reality just fine, and better than anything else.

1 Like

I agree with the way that you have characterized it, Dale. That is how I see it. Others may see it differently, too.

1 Like

I’ve mentioned it somewhere on PS before, but it seems like atheists demanding evidence are demanding that each piece in itself needs to be compelling. That isn’t how science works, is it? So why should this.

25 posts were split to a new topic: Are the Gospels Reliable?

I am willing to look at the pool of evidence as a whole. At the same time, a lot of weak evidence doesn’t become good evidence just because of volume.

2 Likes

But you automatically discount any evidence of God’s providence, so no, you are essentially not willing to look at all the evidence.

On the contrary, we have looked at the evidence - which is how we know you are exaggerating it.

1 Like

I listened to your evidence and didn’t discount it. I just don’t think it evidences the actions of God.

1 Like

A reasonable person would say that this set of multiple events (actually two independent sets!) that you have seen before was outside the reach of probability to have occurred ‘naturally’, like getting 100% heads on 10,000 coin flips. Could happen? Theoretically yeah, but I would be looking for other causes besides mere probability! In combination with all of the other sets in my seven decades, only the few of which have I reported here, you are not seeing all of only my evidence.

Then there are all of George Müller’s (those are almost beyond counting!), Rich Stearns’, Steve Saint’s, and hundreds and probably thousands more that could be researched and documented across the two millennia, not to mention all the biblical ones (which are plentiful) plus all the ones unaccounted for. I’ve spoken with at least a couple of 21st century Christians who wished they had kept a log like I have. (Oh, and don’t forget Augustine’s conversion, insignificant Christian that he was. :slightly_smiling_face:)