Why Cold-Case Skills Can Help You Examine Christianity

[Riven]

Don’t you use logic and reason to help you determine if other things are true?

Why is this different for you?

I do. But in this case, I don't think it would be possible to use logic and reason to make sense of the supernatural.

No one is asked in scripture to rely on their feelings alone.

Perhaps other people don't have to. I haven't met many Christians that want to look at the biblical claims about Jesus with a certain level of scrutiny. Rather, they approach it as if it is true and go from there.

 

[Matthias]

I do. But in this case, I don't think it would be possible to use logic and reason to make sense of the supernatural.

Jesus is a human person.

Perhaps other people don't have to. I haven't met many Christians that want to look at the biblical claims about Jesus with a certain level of scrutiny. Rather, they approach it as if it is true and go from there.

They were probably raised Christian.

 

[Riven]

Jesus is a human person.

A human can't do what he did.

They were probably raised Christian.

They certainly were. I guess I was a bit of an anomaly to them. A curious one to some, and an annoying one to others. Lol.

 

[Matthias]

A human can't do what he did.

He’s no ordinary human. God, his God, was working in him.

They certainly were. I guess I was a bit of an anomaly to them. A curious one to some, and an annoying one to others. Lol.

 

[Riven]

He’s no ordinary human. God, his God, was working in him.

Or he actually was God. I suppose it depends on who you ask.

 

[Matthias]

Or he actually was God. I suppose it depends on who you ask.

Ask yourself: Does God have a God?

Look for confirmation of your answer in the Bible.

 

[Matthias]

“The evidence never changes, but your psychology can. Your psychology will not tell you whether or not Christianity is true, or anything’s true. The evidence will.” - Frank Turek

https://x.com/drfrankturek/status/1989996877534691633?s=61

 

[Jay Ross]

“The evidence never changes, but (h)our psychology can. Your psychology will not tell you whether or not Christianity is true, or anything’s true. The evidence will.” - Frank Turek

https://x.com/drfrankturek/status/1989996877534691633?s=61

one additional letter in this quote has destroyed this quote.

So called AI at work to add to our confusion.

 

[Matthias]

one additional letter in this quote has destroyed this quote.

So called AI at work to add to our confusion.

Auto correct. A helpful disaster.

 

[Jay Ross]

Auto correct. A helpful disaster.

I have enough trouble with my own brain let allow with a programed brain to do magical things with what it writes while trying to understand what I might be wanting to write and post.

PS: - I note that you have now gone back and manually corrected AI's mistake.

 

[Matthias]

 

[Riven]

View attachment 77167

He says this because there is no evidence.

 

[Matthias]

He says this because there is no evidence.

Everyone should know there is evidence.

 

[Matthias]

 

[Riven]

Everyone should know there is evidence.

That's what they said about ghosts for hundreds of years. Now that everyone has a smartphone with a built in camera, combined with a lack of evidence, most people realize that ghosts were never real. If they were, we would have overwhelming evidence given that there are billions of smartphones out there.

You say there's evidence that the biblical stories are true. But you don't provide any evidence. What you're doing is making a claim and not backing it up. Pointing to the bible as evidence in and of itself is insufficient as evidence because it is a book full of claims made by people that lived thousands of years ago.

We have no way to verify if what they claimed to have seen is true. Any Christian, or Muslim for that matter, that believes the claims made in their preferred holy book can be proven to be true with evidence, is free to provide that evidence at any time.

Finally, the idea that atheists aren't interested in evidence, is both ludicrous and a form of projection. It is the believers that don't require evidence for their beliefs because, according to them, it's based on faith. Which is fine; if you want to have faith in the supernatural, you're free to do so. But don't slander other people that do want to base their beliefs on evidence.

 

[Matthias]

That's what they said about ghosts for hundreds of years. Now that everyone has a smartphone with a built in camera, combined with a lack of evidence, most people realize that ghosts were never real. If they were, we would have overwhelming evidence given that there are billions of smartphones out there.

You say there's evidence that the biblical stories are true. But you don't provide any evidence. What you're doing is making a claim and not backing it up. Pointing to the bible as evidence in and of itself is insufficient as evidence because it is a book full of claims made by people that lived thousands of years ago.

We have no way to verify if what they claimed to have seen is true. Any Christian, or Muslim for that matter, that believes the claims made in their preferred holy book can be proven to be true with evidence, is free to provide that evidence at any time.

Finally, the idea that atheists aren't interested in evidence, is both ludicrous and a form of projection. It is the believers that don't require evidence for their beliefs because, according to them, it's based on faith. Which is fine; if you want to have faith in the supernatural, you're free to do so. But don't slander other people that do want to base their beliefs on evidence.

See biblical archaeology. See the writings of other cultures. And just because you deny that the Bible itself isn’t evidence doesn’t mean for a second that it isn’t.

***

Would you dare make the same arguments about there being no evidence for: the Egyptian Empire? The Assyrian Empire? The Baylonian Empire? The Greek Empire? The Roman Empire?

 

[Riven]

See biblical archaeology. See the writings of other cultures.

Neither of which prove that any of the supernatural events recorded in the bible are true.

And just because you deny that the Bible itself isn’t evidence doesn’t mean for a second that it isn’t.

Eyewitness testimony and hearsay are not evidence of the supernatural.

Would you dare make the same arguments about there being no evidence for: the Egyptian Empire? The Assyrian Empire? The Baylonian Empire? The Greek Empire? The Roman Empire?

No. Because empires leave evidence behind of their existence. More importantly, empires are a natural phenomenon; they are not supernatural in nature.

We have physical evidence that the Roman Empire existed. Where is the physical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus? You can point to the bible, but claims cannot be used as evidence.

 

[Matthias]

Neither of which prove that any of the supernatural events recorded in the bible are true.

They are evidence and all evidence has to be evaluated. We may conclude that it is true or false but we can’t reasonably say that it is isn’t evidence.

Eyewitness testimony and hearsay are not evidence of the supernatural.

Yes they are. Again, eyewitness testimony, and even hearsay, is evidence that has to be evaluated.

No. Because empires leave evidence behind of their existence. More importantly, empires are a natural phenomenon; they are not supernatural in nature.

Just like all of the others, the Israelite Empire left behind evidence of its existence and history.

We have physical evidence that the Roman Empire existed. Where is the physical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus?

The physical evidence is in the testimony of those who saw him, touched him, ate with him, amd conversed with him following his resurrection to life.

You can point to the bible, but claims cannot be used as evidence.

I can and will point to the Bible, just as I would point to writings of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greek, the Romans and all other ancient civilizations. It is all used as evidence.

 

[Riven]

They are evidence and all evidence has to be evaluated. We may conclude that it is true or false but we can’t reasonably say that it is isn’t evidence.

Even if that were true, there is no way to evaluate it because the person making tuner claim has been dead for thousands of years and there's no physical evidence that the event ever occurred.

Yes they are. Again, eyewitness testimony, and even hearsay, is evidence that has to be evaluated.

Okay. Then explain to me how we evaluate it. How do we determine if it's true or false?

Just like all of the others, the Israelite Empire left behind evidence of its existence and history.

Empires tend to do that.

The physical evidence is in the testimony of those who saw him, touched him, ate with him, amd conversed with him following his resurrection to life.

That's not physical evidence. That's hearsay that was written down by anonymous authors decades after the crucifixion.

I can and will point to the Bible, just as I would point to writings of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greek, the Romans and all other ancient civilizations. It is all used as evidence.

The Greeks believed in, and wrote about, their pantheon of gods. Does that mean that the Greek gods exist? So far, standard of evidence has been that if it's written down by people, it must be true.

If that's not the case, how do you determine which supernatural claims are true and which are false?

 

[Matthias]

Even if that were true, there is no way to evaluate it because the person making tuner claim has been dead for thousands of years and there's no physical evidence that the event ever occurred.

They haven’t been dead as long as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans and others have been dead. You, like everyone else, accept their writings as evidence.

Okay. Then explain to me how we evaluate it. How do we determine if it's true or false?

That’s the subject of Wallace’s books and videos.

Empires tend to do that.

That’s evidence.

That's not physical evidence. That's hearsay that was written down by anonymous authors decades after the crucifixion.

Historians don’t call it hearsay and the authors aren’t anonymous.

The Greeks believed in, and wrote about, their pantheon of gods. Does that mean that the Greek gods exist?

No. You might find what the early church fathers wrote about them interesting.

So far, standard of evidence has been that if it's written down by people, it must be true.

No it hasn’t. What it has been said to be is evidence; and all evidence should be evaluated.

If that's not the case, how do you determine which supernatural claims are true and which are false?

I’m not hung up on supernatural claims, but I evalutae them from a Christian perspective.