atrib
Sorry for the delay
Responding to post 367…
That was great and very specific. It lays a great foundation for me to point out our different lines of reasoning. And that is all I’m doing here. I’m attempting to just show you the reasoning a theist employs to addresses this issue.
But first, in my last post (362) to you, I addressed a concern you did not bring back up here. That was the issue of you calling my reasoning presumptuous because my premises are stated as true. I tried to point out that ….that is the way all arguments are constructed. It does not mean I’m being presumptuous. You certainly can challenge the truth value of every premise and conclusion. Is that understood now?
Yes I do get it. I used to reason exactly that way.
Further…………here is where we differ now.
1. People should be skeptical of claims involving reanimated flying corpses. You have stipulated to this.
2. The Jesus resurrection story involves a claim of a corpse being reanimated and flying off into the sky under its own power.
3. Therefore, people should be skeptical of the Jesus resurrection story.
Are you with me so far?
Completely with you, you are arguing against miracles…..but your argument is begging the question…..you are arguing in a circle. I’ll attempt to show you that at the end. But first…………
1. This is big. This is what you are not accounting for when you speak against resurrection. Our definition and understandings of miracles is different. Yours is governed and limited by your epistemology of strict materialistic naturalism. Thus to you miracles are a violation of nature and must be naturally explained. I get it. You are begging the question for naturalism. Specifically more on that later.
You do not understand what a theist means by miracle. A miracle is an event by definition that can’t be explained naturally because it is supernatural. By supernatural we mean beyond nature. Miracles are NOT a violation of natural they are an overpowering of nature that can’t be explained naturally. Do you see the difference?
But……
As soon as I say that you likely further reason against me….well…..that opens the door to all fantasy, Santa, etc. Because that is your definition of supernatural events ALL are fantasy. Guilt by association.
But……
From theistic understanding……… It does not open the door to fantasy and here is why……reason still governs what we can understand about the supernatural. Hence the argument. I was arguing for one specific event to be miraculous because it is reasonable God exists. When I suggest that the supernatural exists I’m not inferring all fantasy is true. I’m reasoning TO the event being miraculous once we have eliminated ALL of the reasonable natural explanations. So yes naturalism has a prominent role here.
See……
You started out there when you admitted (post 238) that miracles were possible given God’s existence. So stay with me here…..if miracles are possible then I need provide and argument to delineated the resurrection from fantasy. Hence my argument that the resurrection was a miracle, because given those four facts you cannot have a better natural explanation unless you beg the question that all explanations must be natural.
Since…….
Then you have turned this back around the 180 degrees and think I’m trying to argue that the resurrection proves God’s existence. That I’m not doing with the argument I gave you. More later.
2. You keep referencing my agreement with you. But misunderstand how I agreeing with you. I agree that as you nakedly put it “flying zombies” are fantasy. My argument was to reason why the resurrection was not naked (non-evidenced) fantasy. Think about that. I must present reasoning that separates the resurrection from fantasy….hence the argument. So as I pointed out to you several times…..my assertion that the resurrection was miraculous was not naked fantasy…..I provided evidence and reasoning that would separate the resurrection from naked fantasy.
So…..yes…..
People should be skeptical of the resurrection being fantasy…..I was. But I used to just blindly equate the resurrection (supernatural event) with fantasy. The resurrection was dismissed by quilt of association. And that is what you are reasoning there with your conclusion statement 3 above.
So………...
Being skeptical is important. Thus I challenge you to analyze your skeptical reasoning here. You blindly beg that question for strict naturalism and conclude all supernatural events are fantasy by nothing more than a blind inference to a guilt of association. Thus you can’t address the argument I gave you. You keep countering with irrational tangents to the reasoning because you can’t consider the reasonableness of the supernatural to begin with.
But that is where I was when you set the stage back in post 242. My argument was not trying to prove miracles are possible that seemed granted for sake to continuing the discussion. My argument was the give evidence and reasoning that those four facts around the event of the resurrection were not fantasy but miraculous.
So my hope is that you might better understand (not agree) what my reasoning was…..NOW…..
In fact, people should be skeptical of all claims that involve the laws of nature being broken.
Do you see our difference there?
Because I’m not begging the question for strict naturalism, I don’t see that miracles are a violation of natural law. I reason that miracles are an overpowering of natural law that cannot be explained naturally.
This would include the Jesus resurrection story, the story of Hanuman the flying monkey god, the story of Bumba vomiting up the Sun, the Moon and life, the story of Muhammad riding up to Heaven on a winged horse, and so on.
I get that….but your reasoning is overtly fallacious. It is reasoning by simple guilt of association. At least that is how it is presented there.
The standard for evidence is extraordinarily high, and consistent with the extraordinary nature of the claims, because such claims go against everything we know about reality.
Two parts.
1. This is self-defeating. It sounds reasonable, but it is not. Think about it. That is, as stated, a universal truth. Where is your extraordinary evidence that it is true? I addressed this with bilby earlier with flying horses.
The basis for all belief is sufficient evidence. Your subjective inference to the extraordinary is a volitional bar setting and self-defeating. But it sounds cool.
2….” because such claims go against everything we know about reality. “….but can you see our differences here….. “Know” is the key here….b/c you’re making a philosophical statement about epistemology.
Your statement about reality is blind to the fact that it begs the question for natural explanations only, mine does not. So your statement infers God’s (supernatural) existence is unreasonable. But our discussion was granted those grounds. Because you were trying to understand a theists reasoning here. So again if God’s existence is reasonable….then the reality would include the supernatural, thus it does not go against what one can know about reality.
Again I’m not saying your epistemology has to match mine. I’m just trying to help you understand that the “reality” you talk about is different from mine.
So this is your arbitrary standard …………
The standard of evidence requires that all naturalistic explanations be ruled out before we can consider a supernatural explanation to be credible.
….founded on your naturalism only standard. With that said, I do agree that all natural explanations should weighed and considered. Remember I’m asserting that a miracle is specifically a supernatural event that cannot be explained naturally. So I’m with you there just not to the extraordinary theatrical level. Continuing…….
Which is pretty much impossible to satisfy for any such claim that humans have ever come up with.
…..from your philosophical position IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. That is where you are missing it, right there. Your philosophical position is a miracle is a violation of natural law because it begs the question that the supernatural does not exist.
I keep trying (again post 238) to point this out to you….If god’s exists miracles are possible. Not the other way around…..like here……
In the case of the Jesus resurrection story, this high standard is not going to be satisfied simply by speculating on the motives of the characters allegedly involved with the story.
…..I’m not arguing that the resurrection infers God’s existence is reasonable. I’m arguing the the resurrection was a miracle given the context for discussion that miracles are possible given God’s existence. You agreed. Not that God existed, but that miracles are possible if he existed. So the stage then was set for me to provide reasoning as to why a particular event could be considered miraculous. Hence my argument.
But……
You offered what you reasoned to be a better natural explanation of those four facts. And that was….. that people made things up.
So OK…we reasonably began to discuss the two explanations.
And in that context…….that context…..
I challenged the motivation (you brought it up) of the disciples to make it up….
Just to counter your explanation. That’s all……
You then…..constructed a straw man………..
Turned the issue of motivation into my entire argument and inferred my reasoning inadequate, insufficient and non-extraordinary.
BUT…………….
That was not my argument….it was a counter to your explanation regarding motivation.
Be Fair.
And finally, I am not a historian, or someone who has a particular interest in the origins of the Christ mythology. I understand there may be people who are interested in discussing and speculating on the motives of the people allegedly involved with the Jesus resurrection story, but I see no value to such discussion.
BUT…………..
You were the one that asked. (post 236-8)
Is it really that hard to articulate a good reason for why you believe the Christ mythology?
Here is the articulation plain and simple.
The theist has reason to believe God exists and miraculously created this universe. Thus if God exists and created the universe, then walking on water would be a cinch for him. Really its that simple. If its reasonable that God exists then it reasonable miracles are possible.
Is that reasonable?
To clarify, I'm not asking if God's existence is reasonable. I'm asking you if you understand that miracles would be reasonable given that God exists? For that was the context of your query.
If a god exists that can create universes, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that this god could also suspend the laws of nature as it sees fit. I have no problem with that argument.
…..the context was historical…… To complain about it now and infer it was my fault is....unfair.