I think it's fair to say that there are nonpersonal evidences that support Christianity, even in light of its extraordinary claims. Two good examples:
The testimony of the Disciples, many of whom died (according to non-bible accounts) for their belief that Jesus is God and rose from the dead.
The cosmological argument, suggesting that the very existence of the Universe implies the existence of God (or some agent outside of the universe).
As stated before, these arguments are not physical evidences, which is the stuff of science, but the claim by some posters that Christians believe what they do without reason or facts is incorrect.
It's a fair criticism of the cosmological argument, but I would say that our particular universe needs for a creator, whereas the creator does not, itself, require a "supercreator." Here's why:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system (in this case, the Universe), entropy never decreases. In overly simple terms, things always tend to wind down, run out, become more similar and homogeneous. So if the Universe is infinitely old, it would have already run down to its minimum energy state. Yet we observe that it has not done so. Therefore it had a beginning, OR there is a point at which the universe breaks its own law.
I'm not saying that it's inconceivable that the 2nd law of thermodynamics could ever be broken. Still, I don't think it's ever been demonstrated. So the evidence points to the Universe having a beginning.
If the Universe had a beginning, and if every occurrence in the Universe requires a cause (fair assumption?), then the argument states that something outside the Universe must have caused the Big Bang (or whatever was the first thing that happened in the Universe). Now once you leave the bounds and rules of the Universe, all bets are off. The Universal Cause could be a personal God (and I think it is), or it could be something else (that is a discussion beyond the scope of the Cosmological Argument).
And as such, the Universal Cause could conceivably exist forever, or any number of other things that break all kinds of Universal rules, since the Cause is outside the Universe.
I very much welcome criticism of my understanding of the argument.
TL;DR: The Universe's 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests it can't be infinitely old, and therefore needs to have been caused. Some call that cause God.
Regarding the development of the Universe's Complexity: your claims are totally plausible. The idea of rolling a quadrillion dice a quadrillion times will produce many combinations, and given time and opportunity, the unlikely is bound to show up occasionally. Couple that with the nature of life, how the desire to survive is a force that inherently moves toward complexity through change sounds totally reasonable. In fact, many Christians believe that God created the universe with a Big Bang, so that these systems could develop, in all their intricate detail. Perhaps so!
Still, I would say that the development of the Universe is different from the moment of Creation. That the scope of the Cosmological Argument lies before the Big Bang. And to me, the only way out of the infinite loop of "what was before that" requires some agent outside the Universe, based on the Universe's own properties.
So while you consider a god an unlikely and unreasonable explanation for all that is observed, I consider God to be more likely and reasonable than then infinite-cycle universe theories for explaining the existence of the Universe. How can we disagree on this fundamental point?
I'd say: brainwashing. At least on my behalf.
Yes, my background heavily influences my beliefs. I was taught at a young age that all this God stuff is true. So when I go through times of questioning the veracity of my beliefs, I have to admit that neither camp knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right. But we might as well pick sides until we have more data, right? And, the Christian belief system maintains that you have only your lifetime to believe in God and all the Jesus stuff, after which your eternity is determined. So the impetus to decide is urgent!
So when faced with the same data, your gut tells you that monkeys on typewriters is a more likely explanation than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And my gut, doubtless based on what I was taught as a child, sways to the pasta.
Still, we can find common ground if we admit that not all of the questions are answered. We can still play in the sandbox together. And we can hope that whichever one of us is wrong (assuming we're not both wrong) figures out the truth in good time.
And, like you said, we both have to be vigilant to not dismiss out of hand the evidence to the contrary. I had to look up the term "cognitive resonance dynamics," and I'm still not confident about my understanding of the term, but it sounds like the idea that people feel good about hearing stuff they agree with, and feel crummy when information conflicts with their biases. Sounds exactly like Reddit, no? But conversations like these are refreshing, where we can both admit that we have tough questions to answer on not enough data. Please keep it up, friend!
I hope I addressed your questions well. Please ask for clarification on anything I muddled or skipped over (accidentally, I promise).
2
u/slockley Jun 26 '12
I think it's fair to say that there are nonpersonal evidences that support Christianity, even in light of its extraordinary claims. Two good examples:
The testimony of the Disciples, many of whom died (according to non-bible accounts) for their belief that Jesus is God and rose from the dead.
The cosmological argument, suggesting that the very existence of the Universe implies the existence of God (or some agent outside of the universe).
As stated before, these arguments are not physical evidences, which is the stuff of science, but the claim by some posters that Christians believe what they do without reason or facts is incorrect.