Daniel M. Mittag defines evidentialism in epistemology as follows: "Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S’s evidence for p at t supports believing p." In short, evidentialism is a thought which accepts a proposition as a truth when there is evidence to support that proposition. This definition requires consistency of time related to the proposition and its evidence. In his book Christian Apologetics, Normal L. Geisler evaluates evidentialism to find out if it is acceptable as a test for the truth of Christianity. According to the preface of the book, by Christianity, he means the deity of Christ and the authority of the Bible. He points out some apologists' use of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus …show more content…
One is that they emphasize the objectivity and publicity of evidence. Such evidence can be a "deciding test for truth." The other is their claim that truth should be based on facts. It is logically natural that factualness of events should be there before interpretation of them. Another is the fact that in a context, there is a certain meaning, which is not arbitrary, to events or facts. Thus one must interpret facts in the context. On the other hand, Geisler claims that evidentialism is not proper "as a test for the truth of a world view" because the meaning of evidence depends on the context and it is hard "to establish the overall context by which it obtains its very meaning as evidence." He supports his claim listing five arguments. First, he says that "facts and events have ultimate meaning only within and by virtue of the context of the world view in which they are conceived. As an illustration, he argues about using miracles to support the claim that Jesus is the Son of God. According to him, miracles such as the resurrection cannot be evidence to the deity of Jesus, or his being the Son of God. He claims that the existence of God should be established before one talks about the Son of God or about the act of God. If a miracle were an act of God, as he defines, then his claim would make sense. However, one can define a miracle as an event which is not caused by nature or by any human being. Then one does not need the presupposition of the existence of God. Therefore, miracles can be evidence to the deity of Jesus. And also, to prove the deity of Jesus is not equivalent to prove his being the Son of God. After establishing his deity, the relationship with him and God can be another topic of
One of the main principles of Christianity is the belief in both the divinity and humanity of Jesus, that these two natures are combined harmoniously in one being. In general, all modern Christians believe that Jesus was human, he was considered to be “The Word was made flesh” (John, I: 14). However, Jesus was more than just a human, despite being subjected to pain, suffering and death like all other human beings, he was sinless and also possessed the power to heal and to defy death in order to ascend, both body and spirit, into heaven. He was all man and all God, a combination of these two elements, remaining distinct but united in one being. The deity of Jesus is a non-negotiable belief in Christianity, which is referred to in many parts of scripture, “God was revealed in the flesh” (I Timothy, 3:16). The Christian faith does not perceive Jesus as God but rather a reincarnation of God, a mysterious deity who is the second person of the Holy Trinity. Throughout history, controversy has surrounded the issue of the humanity and divinity of Jesus, leading to the formation of Docetism, the belief that Jesus was fully divine but not fully human, Arianism, that Jesus was superior to all of creation, but less divine than God, and Nestorius, that there were two separate persons within Jesus. This the proportion of the divine and human within Je...
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
So it can be said that gnosis is secret knowledge revealed to man hat only get by someone or a
Jesus, a name known by billions throughout the world. To each, this name means something different; savior, friend, philosopher, prophet, teacher, fraud, fake, liar. Some even believe that He is just an imaginary character from the minds of those who wrote about Him. The Westminster Dictionary of Theology describes apologetics as, "Defense, by argument, of Christian belief against external criticism or against other worldly views" (Apologetics 31-32). Though there are still many mysteries that surround the ongoing debate about Christianity, evidence can now prove some of what Christians took by faith before. Now, more than ever, there is information to prove the existence of this man that walked the earth more than two thousand years ago. Little remains of His life and works except for that which is contained within the pages of the Holy Bible. Throughout the past century alone, there have been numerous discoveries, both scientific and archeological; to further prove the existence of a man called Jesus and reinforce the Bible as a legitimate historical document. The validity of Christianity and Jesus Christ himself has been the center of religious controversy for centuries. Though His identity has not and probably never will be proven, He did exist. This paper will use apologetics to prove this so. Sufficient evidence proves the existence of Jesus and forms a firm basis for Christianity.
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
The first part of the book begins by Wright telling the readers a little about himself and his thoughts on how people, including the church, overlook Jesus and belittles his reign. Early on, Wright discusses that the purpose of the book is to retell Jesus’ message, but in a way that it filters out the worldly explanation we have come to know. In fact, if we are to know just who Jesus was, we need to know the culture, attitudes, and assumptions of the first century Palestine. It becomes apparent in this section of the book that Wright uses liberal and conservative approaches to define Christians in this modern day. Conservative Christians believe God intervenes, while liberal Christians believe that God allows innate human development. In this part of the book Wright discusses the ‘perfect storm’ – which is found out to be three-sided. A storm in the west is created by the growing power of the Roman Empire, who politically reigned over the people in the Israel. Another storm brewed in the east, says Wright, the Israelites who have been in search of the return of God to their people. Lastly, a hurricane approached as well, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Throughout the first part of the book, it seems, Wright establishes that God did set up his kingdom in Israel and the world throu...
God uses Jesus to help the population in all different ways. Jesus helps the blind see, he clothes the poor, and overall, can cure anyone who is worthy. God shows his presence through Jesus so the people of earth have someone to follow. Even today we see God work his wonders even without the presence of Jesus. God shows miracles which no one would believe if they were not reality. God’s presence in the world is mediated through nature and reality as seen in the readings of The Gospel of Matthew and The Book of Exodus.
This is actually critically important. Some touchstone propositions or frame of references could actually do more harm than good. Meaning that if the touchstone proposition a person could claim is at the center of a certain belief is, in fact, incorrect or not logical, confusion rather than understanding is all that particular person will be left with. In Cole’s work he gives the story example of a man who was convinced he was actually a dead man. The supposed dead mans’ family persuaded him to see a therapist.
A definition, which argues against the concept, brought forward by the Catholic Church. He has many metaphors in his novel and many main ideas that he is trying to get across. “The
... God’s word, and it provides humanity with his truth and revelation. His word is a guide to live by, and through his word, all is made clear. No doctrine or faith in Christianity should stray from the word of God. His word is pure and holy, and it reveals his plans and love for all.
His book presents three main perspectives on Christology (biblical, historical, and contemporary). He attempts to combine classical views and contextual views of Christology.
The only point that I thought completely supported their existence is that they were mentioned by non-Christian texts. The trouble is that they were not eyewitnesses; miracles could be rumors that could be messed up through retelling. I understand that eyewitnesses wrote the gospels and so if they said they saw miracles, they probably happened. Is there any other evidence though? Miracles to not be very well historically supported compared to other elements backed in this book. Why was indirect evidence not mentioned? The resurrection of Jesus is more credible because of the indirect evidence, such as the empty
Faith and imagination is all about truth and the belief in a higher power beyond man himself. Faith and imagination binds the power of God’s existence. However, in lack of evidence and that which is unforeseen; consequently, if we know the value of life and understand that which is right and wrong; it truly acknowledges God’s presence among us. when people reference a “miracle” has happened; most people that hold faith as a powerful source don’t just assume the miracle came out of nowhere without some concept of a divine attribute connected to faith. A miracle is not an act based purely on a violation of natural law, but an act of God’s law and his true existence. And if man is to find his true purpose of his existence and fulfilling his life, he must adopt faith and reason.
...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect. This cause and effect does not neccesarily prove there is a God but it does lead one to wonder what may be the highest cause, and for this there is no proof.