Are the claims of Christianity being proved false?
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?

Comments
(Though I suppose if you're a creationist, for whom disproving the literal truth of Genesis would cause your whole belief system to collapse like a house of cards, you might think there is a connection. Pretty sure not too many people here are like that.)
Now this seems a bit worrying, if nothing could ever affect our view of it at all. Surely there should be some connection to experienced reality?
Well no otherwise we would all be believing in everything.
Less snarkily, why should the supernatural nature of a claim affect its falsifiability? Elijah didn't take this line!
Well, is there anything we could discover about, say, the biology and habits of squirrels that would impact our thinking on the existence of God? If you answered no(as I would), then why would any other aspect of life on Earth be relevant to that question?
(There are a few big scientific questions which I think might be relevant to religious discussion, but nothing related to life on earth, in and of itself.)
If God cares about the fall of a sparrow and numbers the hairs on our head, why shouldn't He be relevant to the biology and habits of squirrels? If I were a squirrel, I'd probably find such a view offensive! HEY YOU HUMAN YOU THINK YOUR HAIRS ARE SO IMPORTANT WHAT ABOUT US SQUIRRELS
But that's not what I said.
I said nothing we discover in science and nature could alter the Divine Love for us. How we experience that is an entirely different, and very human, thing.
Well, take quasars. When they were being investigated in the 60s, there were odd features - they seem to be bodies that are far away, very bright, with a huge redshift, or they might be much closer massive stars. OK, you can try out various ideas, and test them via spectography, X-ray viewing, etc. Alternatively, you could think that they are vast angelic beings.
Which view can be tested?
Also, why shouldn't our faith be affected by empirical discoveries? Our faith is hopefully affected by our personal experience of other people, of prayer, of Scripture, of self-examination. Why shouldn't it also be affected by our experience of the natural world?
As far as the quasars go I think both can be tested, if you think that vast angelic beings do anything. If not, then maybe it doesn't matter whether they're vast angelic beings or not?
We define truth without maybe understanding myth and what it means. Foundational understandings of cosmology which serve purposes in a society. I'm continually struck with the the putting together of Euro-Christianity with First Nations (indigenous) understanding. The Euro-Christians say they are orthodox and that other cultures are wrongly adding and subtracting. Which is only true from that standpoint of not listening to other cultures.
Example: indigenous people will understand that they've always lived here. Eden is here,in a way. And will understand that they need to teach respect for the world of plants, animals, water, rocks etc which Euros believe are dead or less than humans. Which leads to a cosmological 'truth' that we need to address the Euro-derived exploitation and desecration of the natural world.
Thus in this context, science has shown that cultural Christianity from Europe is inadequate to deal with current human problems. Which could also be expanded to discuss government, economics, justice, rights.
OK fair enough. But is it not in the essence of Christianity to be incarnational? The Divine Love is not some disembodied abstraction - we say that God is with us, that Jesus became a real human being, that God is involved with the world. So shouldn't we hope and expect to discover something about that Divine Love as we experience and study the world around us?
I think a lot of it boils down to utility. VABs are actually a bit boring. I suppose my faith ebbed away, as on Dover Beach. I have a vestigial Zen type non-dualism.
All I could do was to sigh and wonder, did this writer ever heard of the Black Death?
Absolutely. But I wasn’t answering your question, I was answering the original one, which was "As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?". My answer is no.
I mean, you can look at Star Wars askew and decide its creator wants us all to run around doing dastardly deeds and breathing heavily.
I do not see why it would. There is nothing in the Scriptures or sacred tradition that suggests "The faith rests on the understanding that we know everything about biological life at this point, and there is no need for further exploration."
Mine doesn't begin and end with resurrection. Mine mostly ignores that. It begins and ends with kindness and helping others. Which English cheapens by using the word love and alluding to the commanding of feelings instead of acts.
And those who would cheerfully agree NOT to pray for certain people are possibly not the kind of people you'd expect to get a divine response to, when they pray for others.
In short, if prayer is some sort of automated push-button-get-benefit action, it would work; but pretty much everybody denies that of prayer.
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Right but where is the line? These three things about squirrels are irrelevant to faith, but when we found out this FOURTH one, by Jayzoos, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God {does|does not} exist! It seems inane on the face of it.
Yes every new disaster is trotted out as disproof of God. "Okay all of those other catastrophes didn't disprove God, but this one, finally, does!" Give it a rest, atheists.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
It doesn't seem to me that experience is a reliable guide in this respect, since everybody's leads to such different conclusions.
Evidence of what? Belief?
This Christian believes that God has always been immanent, has always grounded being. There is no evidence of that whatsoever and never will be. Until we die. The only possible warrant for it is the earliest writings of the Church.
In the case of God you'd need to show that the consequences of the concept are incoherent.
I agree with @Telford actually in that the questions "why is there something rather than nothing" and "why am I here experiencing self-consciousness rather than being an unconscious robot faking self-consciousness" are to me evidence against pure materialism though not for Christianity in particular.
Well, there are different versions, a semantic one, that existence is something, to a more hard core view that being without gravity seems hard, to the clever, the undifferentiated potential whence all things emanate. For myself, when my wife goes to the shop, I experience the full horror of the existential void.
To erode Christianity would be - and is being done, I suggest -, by a process of replacing the entirely faith beliefs with beliefs whose faith is backed up by objective evidence and usually more reliable.
Also, we are well aware that humans make mistakes and allow for that.
I'm not happy with the word 'erode', as I think it gives an impression of something disappearing, worn away by natural happenings, whereas there is no need for those who are Christians to feel their way of life is being eroded, leaving a vacuum. All christians are humans, with natural altruism and all our other emotions and behaviours, so that will remain, but a great deal of scientific evidence is available now to support the greater knowledge and understanding of us as humans, so I see no reason why humans should or would be less strong without a faith. I think they would be stronger, butt then, that's just me!
If you want to prosecute someone for theft, the first thing you need to do is prove that something has been stolen. If you want to prove that God made the earth the first thing you need to do is prove that the earth exists
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
I'd say that overstates your case. YOUR experience may not be a reliable guide for ME, but my experience very well may. Indeed, if you will indulge me in a bit of Locke, there is absolutely nothing else I have to go on but my experience.