Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08/29/03 11:52pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "The REAL question" on 04/23/02 12:08pm
>I've often been amazed by the lengths I've seen
>Christians go to to justify a belief that simply
>doesn't make sense. There are intricate defenses of
>all sorts of mundane points, but they neglect the
>central point upon which all others rest. So here in
>this thread, I thought I would ask this question in
>hopes that some Christian can come through and answer
>this one very simple tenet upon which all other
>beliefs they hold rest:
>
>What evidence is there that the Bible is the word of
>God?
There is some evidence, none you would believe to be sufficient of course. One method of justification is to show that things like the New Testament are historically reliable documents, and that if one had no bias against the supernatural and or if the supernatural elements were removed, even most atheists would accept them as genuine. Certain non-supernatural facets could be used to support the Christian faith, and eventually the “word of God” thing in general. (For instance, trying to find an alternate explanation other than the Resurrection.)
>I will take brief pause here and address the issue of
>prophecy before it even becomes an issue. Prophecy
>without a specific time frame is useless.
Oh I wouldn’t say that.
Consider this hypothetical case. There is an event in Christian eschatology known as the Rapture, where in the twinkling of an eye millions of people (Christians, though some have speculated that children below the age of accountability would be included as well) vanish without a trace of their bodies. Cars suddenly become unmanned, a few planes might crash because their pilots are gone, people suddenly disappearing right in front of security cameras, credible witnesses etc. Suppose this otherwise enormously unlikely event actually happens, and also suppose (which would be in fact true) it was predicted in advance. This would seem (to me at least) to be overwhelming evidence. But would you believe the cause of this to be the Christian God?
But suppose this is only the beginning. Let's say other otherwise unlikely (yet predicted in advance) events happen. Try and really picture yourself actually walking down the sidewalk, driving your car etc. and witnessing these events happen. There is a great earthquake, and the sky and the sun turn black as sackcloth (i.e. a sky with daylight suddenly turns black), and the moon turns blood red. Many shooting stars fall from the sky. How about then?
Sometime after the above plague, hail and fire, perhaps mixed with something else looking like blood, fall from the sky and burned up a portion of the land, including the trees and the green grass. How about then?
Sometime after the above plagues, a significant fraction of the seas turn to blood (Revelation says one third, but I feel that number may be symbolic). Some of the creatures in the seas die, and some of the ships sink to their doom. How about then?
Sometime after those plagues, the moonlight, starlight, and sunlight are struck; the hours of daylight shortened, with the sun and the moon and the stars not giving as much as light as they once did. How about then?
The fact that such events were not given a specific date still doesn’t change the evidence. Predictions without a date specified may not be capable of being proved false, but they can be proven true. If you would still dismiss these predictions, how would you account for the evidence? Would you really believe it had all been a coincidence?
>I'm willing to accept the Bible is the word of God
>provided someone can present cogent positive evidence
>(for the claim that one single book alone is the word
>of God is an extraordinary claim that requires
>extraordinary evidence) for that claim.
Even this is disputable. The philosophical principle “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” suffers some serious epistemological problems. One of them is what’s extraordinary for one may not seem so extraordinary for another, like the Bible being the word of God. You may find it an “extraordinary” claim, but for some it’s mundane as the existence of Abraham Lincoln.
>The gauntlet is thrown, and a well intentioned
>Christian can get the opportunity to lead a poor
>blinded soul to Christianity. I've even delineated
>what I would and wouldn't accept as proof. How much
>easier could it be?
A lot easier. One could criticize as your standards being biased and unreasonably high, irrationally applying double standards, failing to recognize an appropriate level of satisfactory evidence etc.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 