Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1
st, 2014 at 11:30am:
I know if I have a good relationship with my children because it is self-evident or they tell me or others observing the relationship comment favourably. Science is not very helpful here.
There is no doubt that my children exist although there have been some philosophers that question even their own existence. But the question is do my children love me? And that cannot be tested in a laboratory. I just know it. I could be fooling myself but the evidence, such as it is, has to be subjective and, for me at least, pretty convincing.
My point about 2 or 3 witnesses is the quality of the witnesses. If we could not trust reputable witnesses we could not have any sort of justice system worthy to be called by that name. In the case of Christianity the prime witness is Jesus himself because all his claims are pretty consistently reported in the gospels. If his claims about himself are true then he is either someone that is criminally insane or he is what he claimed to be – God. For 2000 years the only people that have come to the first conclusion are people that have not examined the claims thoroughly. If Jesus’ claim to be God is in fact true then there he is – God.
I know that the prejudice that he cannot be God will defeat anyone coming to examine the claim before they start but many people have examined it and come to the conclusion that he is God. Which leaves them with a dilemma - what are they going to do about it?
If the Bible is true in other areas then we are all prejudiced against God and something else is required to turn their thinking. So it is not surprising that most people are unable to see what is startlingly obvious to others.
The relationship with your kids is not anything like a relationship with a deity. For one thing, the fact that your children even exist is provable, and it isn't with a supreme being (at least until some kind of evidence for said being turns up)
Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1
st, 2014 at 11:30am:
In the mean time we could get to know what he/she is like by talking to people that claim to have met him/her. These are people that the courts would call witnesses. Which brings me to an alternate method of finding truth other than through the scientific method.
For centuries the law courts have determined the truth of a matter largely through witnesses, hopefully 2 or 3. It tries to determine if they are ordinarily reliable people, whether they are largely in agreement regarding the matter (though not to closely in agreement because that implies collusion). If they are not normally people that tell lies then what they say, especially if several say much the same thing, is normally given considerable weight.
In a similar vein to what you were saying about children, you are confusing two very different things. If all you need as evidence is a few people to say it is true, then that would pretty much include every religion, every crazy conspiracy theory, and probably every mental health ward too.
Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1
st, 2014 at 11:30am:
Religion (or at least Christianity) claims to have a large collection of such people. Most have not been discredited by the very large number of people that have set out to scrupulously do just that, only by those that use less than scrupulous methods (that is using their prejudices).
What exactly are you referring to here? The historicity of the religion (i.e. did the bible stories actually happen) or the believers?
If it is the believers, then it is wise to remember the burden of proof on any claim is on the person
making the claim. If someone claims that God exists, it is up to them to substantiate it, not for others to disprove it.
Forum
Pages: 
