Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Hold on. You are not going to get away with blaming me for all the "gish gallop". You were the one that jumped all over everything in every direction. My duty was to respond.

A gish gallop is when someone responds with a wall of fallacies and evasions and false accusations and pathetic attempts at condescension when in fact it is they who are guilty of all the crimes they try to pin on their opponent. Like you just did.

 

[remez]

I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying.

Yes it is a common apologetic for the resurrection. Gary Habermas is commonly sited as the engineer. But it presupposes nothing.

You are once again conflating presupposition and premise.......try this..........

As nouns the difference between presupposition and premise is that presupposition is an assumption made beforehand; a preliminary conjecture or speculation while premise is a proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument; a condition; a supposition.
https://wikidiff.com/premise/presupposition

Your contention with the argument stems from you lack of understanding of how and argument is constructed. Premises are not presuppositions. We have had the conversation before. Premises are statements (truth bearers) that support the conclusion. Statements have a truth value of true or false. So when and argument is constructed the premises are presented as positive true support. They are assumed true. However inherent in the understanding of any argument is the premises are clearly open for debate. So anyone wishing to defeat the argument can simply show that the assumed truth value is false. You and KEITH keep inferring to this assumed truth value as a presupposition, it is clearly not. That is how you construct an argument. This is common understanding........

Arguments


Critical thinking is the art of reasoning well. Since good reasonong involves arguments, we start with them.


An argument is a series of statements consisting of premises and a conclusion.
A statement is a sentence which has a truth value, that is, in a two-valued logic, is true or false (Hence, questions, exhortations, or commands are not statements)
A statement is a premise in an argument A if its truth is assumed, at least hypothetically, and not established by A.
A conclusion in an argument A is a claim whose truth is supposed to be established by A.
The premises are supposed to provide support for the conclusion so that if one grants their truth, then one should grant that the conclusion is true or, depending on the nature of the argument, likely to be true.
http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/crit-arg.html

You don't have to grant them as true. How else can you construct an argument if you don't assume your premises are true? Thus my responsibility is to support those premises as true, if their truth value is challenged. There are not presuppositions. But I must assume their truth value to construct the argument.

The only presupposition here is yours and KEITH'S presupposing the all arguments presuppose. That is simply a lack of understanding and that lack of understanding would not affect the conclusion of my presented argument.

so this is................

At least, that is how Remez has been framing his argument in this thread. This is a fools errand that might work in Sunday school, but is unlikely to fool skeptics who have the ability to think rationally.

............... you continuing to present your "lack of understanding" of how an argument is constructed and you are not thinking rationally.

So if you are as bright a skeptic as you presuppose you are, show me rationally where the argument fails.......which is where we left off in post 329. You did not respond to that. You just came back here and created a character assassination of me and other Christians based on your presupposed brilliant lack of understanding about argument construction.

You have a history of this. You did the same thing with the KCA and FTA in the past. You can't address the argument or your share of the burden, so instead.....assisted by your brilliant lack of understanding of argument construction, you irrationally conclude that I'm presupposing.

Again one last time your lack of understanding here, despite your presupposed brilliance, has no effect on the outcome of my presented argument.

In my arguments with Remez, I have repeatedly pointed out that his presuppositions are not valid until they are supported by evidence.

And I continually try to educate you of the fact that presuppositions and premises are not the same thing. I'm ready and very willing to support any of my premises/evidences. You have the burden to challenge the ones you reason to be false. It is that simple. Which one do you consider wrong and why? I laid all this out on post 329.

So far, Remez has not attempted to make a case to establish the historicity of the resurrection claim,

Yet you have quoted the argument/case several times. Which logically means you have quoted the evidence several times.

Here you are making yet another mistake. I have MADE the case/argument. You are asserting that I have not SUPPORTED it. I will support it if you tell me what your contention is. I'm not clairvoyant.

This is likely because he realizes that the evidence to corroborate these claims does not exist,

It absolutely exists for each one. Which one do you want to challenge? You are so afraid of any burden that you can't even step up to the plate and tell me what you think is wrong and why?

Let me throw your irrational game back at you. Atrib just presupposes the premises are wrong. Perhaps he knows that he can't actually challenge any one of them so he just claims there is no support. He's so afraid to be shown wrong that he just presupposes there is no support. So if he doesn't specifically ask, he can't be shown wrong. He miserably failed in his one attempt with the alternative explanation (not the premise support) people make things up. So now he just presupposes the evidence has no support.

now this is where is gets really good.............you just said....

So far, Remez has not attempted to make a case to establish the historicity of the resurrection claim,

and now........

Lacking evidence, he turns to bluster and the cockatoo defense, repeating his arguments over and over while ignoring the opposing arguments.

Did I?
OR
Didn't I make a case/argument?
Make up your mind.
well.....
I did make a case/argument with four premises (evidence) and a conclusion. So how is it my conclusion lacking evidence in your eyes?

You even quoted the evidence when to quoted argument/case. So your "pseudo argument" more like irrational complaint against me is that you just presuppose that my evidence does not exist or lacks support. Thus there was no argument to ignore, just an errant presupposition to redress.
And....
I certainly did not ignore it your presupposition.

Remez has agreed that skepticism is or should be the rational response to claims that involve reanimated flying corpses.

Originally stated as "response to naked claims". Which means without evidence and reason. Thus with that correction in place I still do.

In order to argue that the specific Biblical claims regarding flying reanimated corpses, Remez needs to demonstrate why this skepticism should be waived or set aside.

I'm not waving it aside, I've been begging for you to put your skepticism into a counter that I could then address. You just keep regurgitating your presupposition that I have no evidence, no argument and my evidence has no support. I have addressed your presupposition repeatedly.
here again............

" I have no evidence" even though you have quoted it several times.
" I have no argument/case" even though you have quoted it several times.
" my evidence has no support." you have yet to challenge one and for any reason. You are too afraid to get your feet wet.

and now your conclusion...

This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim, Remez has chosen to take the easy way out. So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

parsed.....

This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim,

here again.....my case for the best explanation.........

I really want to discuss the argument.......which is the best explanation for these four historical facts...............

1- Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb.
2- the tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body
3- the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4- the disciples were transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

I contend that these four pieces of evidence can best be explained by the miraculous occurrence of the resurrection.

That is the argument/case.

I have provided it again and again and again.

So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

Your first contention was not against the premises(evidence) but the explanation (conclusion) with your alternative "that people made things up".....You therefore introduced the reasoning about motivation. So why are you complaining? It was the foundation of your objection.

instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

I'm willing to get into the support if specifically challenged. Evidenced by my conversation with koy regarding my defense of Paul's quoting a creed that was in existence prior to the gospels.

Your whining ignores my support of the evidence with other posters. It's not my problem you get up to that level in our conversation.

Post 329 is still begging for you to step up.

 

[Brian63]

On average, how much time do you folks spend drafting and writing and then proofreading your long-winded responses to each other?

I wonder if anybody else is actually reading them besides yourselves, as well. Certainly not me. Will just scroll steadily down through it. This style of back-and-forth insulting pollutes any meaningful discussion.

 

[remez]

Hold on. You are not going to get away with blaming me for all the "gish gallop". You were the one that jumped all over everything in every direction. My duty was to respond.

A gish gallop is when someone responds with a wall of fallacies and evasions and false accusations and pathetic attempts at condescension when in fact it is they who are guilty of all the crimes they try to pin on their opponent. Like you just did.

So with those false accusations in the record I'll rest my case with you, until such time you can back that up and redress post 359.
Thanks

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Hold on. You are not going to get away with blaming me for all the "gish gallop". You were the one that jumped all over everything in every direction. My duty was to respond.

A gish gallop is when someone responds with a wall of fallacies and evasions and false accusations and pathetic attempts at condescension when in fact it is they who are guilty of all the crimes they try to pin on their opponent. Like you just did.

So with those false accusations in the record I'll rest my case with you

Oooh, you're so important.

 

[Politesse]

How so?

Ah, you know, death itself conquered, the barrier between worlds overcome. Like the temple curtain. For a narrative of liberation, you want open symbols snd surmounted barriers, not closed ones. Would look silly painting a mural of a sealed tomb.

At my childhood church they slammed the lectern bible closed on good friday to stmbolize the closing of the tomb, then made quite a show out of opening it again at the conclusion of Easter Vigil.

Incidentally, I think when I took the whole thing more literally, it had always been the angels who'd unsealed the tomb.

And you never connected the fact that he could pop in and out existence wherever he pleased?

It's a bit odd, yeah. But there are a lot of things you don't think to question when you're ten.

 

[atrib]

Yes it is a common apologetic for the resurrection. Gary Habermas is commonly sited as the engineer. But it presupposes nothing.

You are once again conflating presupposition and premise.......try this..........


Your contention with the argument stems from you lack of understanding of how and argument is constructed. Premises are not presuppositions. We have had the conversation before. Premises are statements (truth bearers) that support the conclusion. Statements have a truth value of true or false. So when and argument is constructed the premises are presented as positive true support. They are assumed true. However inherent in the understanding of any argument is the premises are clearly open for debate. So anyone wishing to defeat the argument can simply show that the assumed truth value is false. You and KEITH keep inferring to this assumed truth value as a presupposition, it is clearly not. That is how you construct an argument. This is common understanding........

Arguments


Critical thinking is the art of reasoning well. Since good reasonong involves arguments, we start with them.


An argument is a series of statements consisting of premises and a conclusion.
A statement is a sentence which has a truth value, that is, in a two-valued logic, is true or false (Hence, questions, exhortations, or commands are not statements)
A statement is a premise in an argument A if its truth is assumed, at least hypothetically, and not established by A.
A conclusion in an argument A is a claim whose truth is supposed to be established by A.
The premises are supposed to provide support for the conclusion so that if one grants their truth, then one should grant that the conclusion is true or, depending on the nature of the argument, likely to be true.
http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/crit-arg.html

You don't have to grant them as true. How else can you construct an argument if you don't assume your premises are true? Thus my responsibility is to support those premises as true, if their truth value is challenged. There are not presuppositions. But I must assume their truth value to construct the argument.

The only presupposition here is yours and KEITH'S presupposing the all arguments presuppose. That is simply a lack of understanding and that lack of understanding would not affect the conclusion of my presented argument.

so this is................

At least, that is how Remez has been framing his argument in this thread. This is a fools errand that might work in Sunday school, but is unlikely to fool skeptics who have the ability to think rationally.

............... you continuing to present your "lack of understanding" of how an argument is constructed and you are not thinking rationally.

So if you are as bright a skeptic as you presuppose you are, show me rationally where the argument fails.......which is where we left off in post 329. You did not respond to that. You just came back here and created a character assassination of me and other Christians based on your presupposed brilliant lack of understanding about argument construction.

You have a history of this. You did the same thing with the KCA and FTA in the past. You can't address the argument or your share of the burden, so instead.....assisted by your brilliant lack of understanding of argument construction, you irrationally conclude that I'm presupposing.

Again one last time your lack of understanding here, despite your presupposed brilliance, has no effect on the outcome of my presented argument.

In my arguments with Remez, I have repeatedly pointed out that his presuppositions are not valid until they are supported by evidence.

And I continually try to educate you of the fact that presuppositions and premises are not the same thing. I'm ready and very willing to support any of my premises/evidences. You have the burden to challenge the ones you reason to be false. It is that simple. Which one do you consider wrong and why? I laid all this out on post 329.

So far, Remez has not attempted to make a case to establish the historicity of the resurrection claim,

Yet you have quoted the argument/case several times. Which logically means you have quoted the evidence several times.

Here you are making yet another mistake. I have MADE the case/argument. You are asserting that I have not SUPPORTED it. I will support it if you tell me what your contention is. I'm not clairvoyant.

This is likely because he realizes that the evidence to corroborate these claims does not exist,

It absolutely exists for each one. Which one do you want to challenge? You are so afraid of any burden that you can't even step up to the plate and tell me what you think is wrong and why?

Let me throw your irrational game back at you. Atrib just presupposes the premises are wrong. Perhaps he knows that he can't actually challenge any one of them so he just claims there is no support. He's so afraid to be shown wrong that he just presupposes there is no support. So if he doesn't specifically ask, he can't be shown wrong. He miserably failed in his one attempt with the alternative explanation (not the premise support) people make things up. So now he just presupposes the evidence has no support.

now this is where is gets really good.............you just said....

So far, Remez has not attempted to make a case to establish the historicity of the resurrection claim,

and now........

Lacking evidence, he turns to bluster and the cockatoo defense, repeating his arguments over and over while ignoring the opposing arguments.

Did I?
OR
Didn't I make a case/argument?
Make up your mind.
well.....
I did make a case/argument with four premises (evidence) and a conclusion. So how is it my conclusion lacking evidence in your eyes?

You even quoted the evidence when to quoted argument/case. So your "pseudo argument" more like irrational complaint against me is that you just presuppose that my evidence does not exist or lacks support. Thus there was no argument to ignore, just an errant presupposition to redress.
And....
I certainly did not ignore it your presupposition.

Remez has agreed that skepticism is or should be the rational response to claims that involve reanimated flying corpses.

Originally stated as "response to naked claims". Which means without evidence and reason. Thus with that correction in place I still do.

In order to argue that the specific Biblical claims regarding flying reanimated corpses, Remez needs to demonstrate why this skepticism should be waived or set aside.

I'm not waving it aside, I've been begging for you to put your skepticism into a counter that I could then address. You just keep regurgitating your presupposition that I have no evidence, no argument and my evidence has no support. I have addressed your presupposition repeatedly.
here again............

" I have no evidence" even though you have quoted it several times.
" I have no argument/case" even though you have quoted it several times.
" my evidence has no support." you have yet to challenge one and for any reason. You are too afraid to get your feet wet.

and now your conclusion...

This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim, Remez has chosen to take the easy way out. So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

parsed.....

This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim,

here again.....my case for the best explanation.........

I really want to discuss the argument.......which is the best explanation for these four historical facts...............

1- Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb.
2- the tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body
3- the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4- the disciples were transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

I contend that these four pieces of evidence can best be explained by the miraculous occurrence of the resurrection.

That is the argument/case.

I have provided it again and again and again.

So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

Your first contention was not against the premises(evidence) but the explanation (conclusion) with your alternative "that people made things up".....You therefore introduced the reasoning about motivation. So why are you complaining? It was the foundation of your objection.

instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

I'm willing to get into the support if specifically challenged. Evidenced by my conversation with koy regarding my defense of Paul's quoting a creed that was in existence prior to the gospels.

Your whining ignores my support of the evidence with other posters. It's not my problem you get up to that level in our conversation.

Post 329 is still begging for you to step up.

You just don't get it. Let me try to make this as simple as I can:

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?

In fact, people should be skeptical of all claims that involve the laws of nature being broken. 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. Extraordinary claims need to be supported by extraordinary evidence in order to overcome the skepticism that would otherwise be appropriate for such claims. 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. The standard of evidence requires that all naturalistic explanations be ruled out before we can consider a supernatural explanation to be credible. Which is pretty much impossible to satisfy for any such claim that humans have ever come up with.

Note that this high standard only applies to claims that involve supernatural explanations. If the claim were simply that Jesus was a fisherman and a preacher who had built up a small group of followers over the course of his life, and that Jesus was executed by the Romans, the claim would be much more credible because it does not involve intervention by a supernatural creator that presumably lives outside the visible universe. You have to recognize that there is fundamental difference between the claims of history that do not involve supernatural elements, and the claims that do.

Are you still with me?

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. In fact, even if we could magically stipulate that the characters allegedly involved with the story (assuming they were real people in history), and the author of the story itself, all sincerely believed this story to be true, we would still not be able to rule out a naturalistic explanation for the story. And as long as a naturalistic explanation cannot be ruled out, the story cannot be considered credible.

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. You would not be able to overcome my (well deserved) skepticism of the story by making the argument that the characters had no reason to lie, for all the reasons explained above. Such a discussion would be a waste of time for me, so I am not interested in engaging in that specific debate.

 

[skepticalbip]

You just don't get it. Let me try to make this as simple as I can:

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.

You are forgetting special pleading. Any of the other religions that claim their god did the same miraculous feats attributed to Jesus proves that those religions are full of shit because such feats are impossible. However Jesus performing these feats proves that he is divine because they are impossible for anyone but a god.

 

[atrib]

You just don't get it. Let me try to make this as simple as I can:

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.

You are forgetting special pleading. Any of the other religions that claim their god did the same miraculous feats attributed to Jesus proves that those religions are full of shit because such feats are impossible. However Jesus performing these feats proves that he is divine because they are impossible for anyone but a god.

There are many things I did not touch on, because I wanted to keep my argument easy to understand. Apologists have a habit of going off on irrelevant tangents, and I wanted to minimize that as much as possible and keep the conversation focused on what I felt was important.

And yes, it is incredibly hypocritical to apply one set of standards to your preferred mythology, and another set of standards to someone else's preferred mythology. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Dead-and-resurrected personal savior messiahs were popular in the time and place the Christ mythology originated, and some of these stories have physical evidence to support them. Which is something the Christian apologists can only dream of. When placed in the appropriate historical context, we find the Christ story to be neither original, nor groundbreaking; it just happens to be one of many and there is very little to set it apart from other similarly themed stories that were popular around that time in that corner of the world.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And you never connected the fact that he could pop in and out existence wherever he pleased?

It's a bit odd, yeah. But there are a lot of things you don't think to question when you're ten.

An historical pity.

 

[skepticalbip]

You just don't get it. Let me try to make this as simple as I can:

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.

You are forgetting special pleading. Any of the other religions that claim their god did the same miraculous feats attributed to Jesus proves that those religions are full of shit because such feats are impossible. However Jesus performing these feats proves that he is divine because they are impossible for anyone but a god.

There are many things I did not touch on, because I wanted to keep my argument easy to understand. Apologists have a habit of going off on irrelevant tangents, and I wanted to minimize that as much as possible and keep the conversation focused on what I felt was important.

Yes, I understand. I was just trying to understand Remez's apparently self contradictory posts. He agrees with you that such claims should be viewed skeptically ... EXCEPT ... when it is the Jesus myths. In that case, and only that case, they are obviously true because those claims are how Christians determined that Jesus was indeed a god.

Of course other religions that use the same sort of tortured logic are just too brain washed by their religion to see they are committing the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

[atrib]

I really want to discuss the argument.......which is the best explanation for these four historical facts...............

1- Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb.
2- the tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body
3- the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4- the disciples were transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

I contend that these four pieces of evidence can best be explained by the miraculous occurrence of the resurrection.

That is the argument/case.

[atrib: irrelevant stuff stuff deleted]

It absolutely exists for each one. Which one do you want to challenge? You are so afraid of any burden that you can't even step up to the plate and tell me what you think is wrong and why?

I am one step ahead of you. I anticipated where you were going with this and I refused to engage because I knew your argument was a dead end. You were going to argue that the Jesus resurrection story was credible because nobody could conclusively demonstrate that the alleged witnesses in the story were lying, or that the author of the story (author of Mark) was also lying. Or that these alleged "facts" you cite could be disproved.

And I am saying it doesn't matter. Even if we could somehow miraculously demonstrate that

1. the alleged witnesses were real people in history, and sincerely believed they had witnessed whatever they allegedly witnessed, and
2. that they were transformed by their experiences, and
3. that this story was somehow reported intact and unaltered to the authors of the gospels, who then wrote it down exactly as they had heard them, and
4. that this story managed to survive 2,000 years without any alterations despite being copied numerous times and translated into other languages,

it would still not be sufficient to meet the extraordinary burden of proof that any unbiased, reasonable person would require to find such a story credible. This is because the claims are extraordinary, and go against everything we know about how nature works. Corpses don't come back to life after days of of being dead, they start to decompose. The brain starts to liquefy and turn into organic soup. And human bodies, reanimated or not, lack the flight control surfaces to fly into the air under their own power.

Even if we could stipulate to all of the story elements you refer to as "facts", which we can't, we would still not be able to rule out naturalistic explanations. People lie and they make up and embellish stories. People can be misled or deceived into believing certain things, sometimes even knowingly. It is even possible that Jesus was an alien spy in human form from another planet, placed on Earth to gather intelligence, and the aliens recovered his/its remains once their mission was accomplished or the spy was killed. Even the alien hypothesis is a more credible explanation for the origin of the story than your preferred explanation that a supernatural creator entity from outside the universe somehow intervened in our affairs. The alien hypothesis is more credible because it does not invoke the supernatural.

We don't need to know the precise details of how and why the story originated in order to be skeptical of the story. That's just you trying to shift the burden of evidence to the skeptic by demanding that he disprove the story. We don't need to be trained historians, and we don't need to investigate every aspect of the story in order to find the story to be lacking credibility. For example, some humans have claimed that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse, and that there existed a monkey god called Hanuman who could fly, and lift mountains with his bare hands. Do you find these stories credible? Did you have to conduct exhaustive research to reach the conclusion that these stories are, in all likelihood, false, if that is what you believe? And would you find the stories convincing if it could be demonstrated that the authors of these stories had no motive to lie, and even that they sincerely believed these stories to be true? I bet you wouldn't!!

 

[steve_bank]

Remez continues with the Christian two step dancing around the simple core of the issue.

There are four documents that do not exactly agree. There is no contemporary coorboration.

For once I'd like to see a Christian say 'I understand what you are saying, however I belive the gospels to be true. I have faith.'

I can accept that and even respect it. The lengthy diversions and rationale to me indicate a clear lack of faith. Christians are not trying to convince us, they are trying to convince themselves. This is done by reputation and continual reading of scripture as reinforcement.

A true believer needs no reinforcing. This is why I think the majority of Christians really do not know what faith and religion really means.

Real faith refer to faith as a spiritual armor against the corruptions and chaos of life. It is internal not external. As Jesus said, pray in private and do not wear your faith on your sleeve.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The written accounts of the Jesus miracle acts are evidence that he did those acts.

The claim that it happened is evidence that it happened.

It is not evidence that anything happened; it is only "evidence" that someone believed something happened.

It's both.

No, it is not.

So then you think there is no evidence for any historical events? How can there be any such evidence other than the written record left to us from someone back then who believed it happened?

All our history record is based on reports of what "someone believed" happened.

No, it is not. Anything that is, however, is typically deemed "apocryphal." That's why we came up with that word.

Whatever you "deem" it, or jargon you apply to it, or word games you play with it, the reason we believe it is that someone back then believed it happened, and they had reason to believe it, probably, and so it's probably true. Though there's no certainty, just probability. If you say "no," then you're saying there is no historical record which is credible.

and we have reason to believe it

No, we don't. But don't let facts stop you.

So you're rejecting all historical facts, because we have no reason to believe the written record left to us by people 1000 or 2000 years ago? And do you insist that no one else should believe any of the historical record? and that's why we must not believe the Jesus miracle acts happened? because NO historical events really ever happened? Be sure you always explain that when you explain why we should not believe the Jesus miracle events happened. I.e., it's because NO historical events back then happened, or there's no evidence for any of them, so there's none we can believe. And that's the only reason you can give why the Jesus miracles must not have happened.

Will Durant said it better: "History is mostly guessing. The rest is prejudice."

Aka, "apocryphal." Which argues against your position in regard to the Christian mythology, not in favor of it.

So that's why we can't believe Jesus did any miracles? because we can't believe ANY historical facts, because they're all "apocryphal"? which means there's no past events we can believe, if they're based on written documents? which is 99% of what history books are based on? You're throwing out 99% of our historical record, in order to make sure the Jesus miracle events get thrown out.

Whatever flowery language you use to describe its nonperfection, without the written record telling us what they believed happened we'd have no history.

This is just more nonsense proving that you know the Christian mythology to be . . .

Some, not all, of "the Christian mythology" is probably fictional, like the Bethlehem stories and virgin birth, which are based on ancient prophecy tradition rather than reports of what happened. It isn't necessary to put ALL the Christian beliefs into the same category. What we have good evidence for are the miracle acts of Jesus, i.e., the healing miracles and the Resurrection, plus some other facts. But there are also claims or legends best explained as fiction, evolving as a reaction and theological interpretation to explain where Jesus got his power from.

. . . the Christian mythology to be nothing more than unreliable anecdotes at best.

Maybe some is. But not the miracle acts -- they're in the same category as our standard historical facts, which are also "unreliable anecdotes" according to you. You are ignoring that we can distinguish the fact from the fiction, both for standard recognized historical events, and also for the Jesus miracle acts, which are also based on written documents and have similar credibility as the mainline historical facts. But we require extra evidence for miracle claims, like more than only one source, etc., beyond the minimum required for normal events.

If I say to you, "I saw Xenu," that is NOT evidence that Xenu actually exists; that is only "evidence" that I saw something that I believed to be Xenu. If 500 people all claim that they saw Xenu, that, likewise is NOT evidence that Xenu actually exists; that is only "evidence" of 500 people who saw something that they believed to be Xenu.

Therefore Julius Caesar did not exist.

We have extensive evidence that a Caesar named Julius existed (such as coins, and busts), but . . .

No, there'd be no knowledge what those coins and busts were without the written record, which is our real evidence for Caesar. And this is based on people saying he existed, by writing it down, which makes it evidence that he existed, with or without the coins and busts, etc. Just like the 500 people claiming Xenu existed. Except that you're wrong that 500 people 75 million years ago claimed that Xenu existed, and that's how we know he did not exist. But if they had claimed it, in documents surviving to our time, that would be evidence that Xenu existed.

Someone claiming it is so, in a record they left from the time it happened, is evidence that it happened, because they said so. That IS evidence that it is so. And without those claims someone made there'd be no evidence for Caesar or anything else historical.

. . . but most importantly, nobody gives a shit if a guy named Jesus existed. indeed, many millions of guys named Jesus have existed.

That's your most important point? Why is that important? It's unrelated to our topic, and in the nutball category.

It's not a question of whether or not men have ever walked the earth; it's a question of whether or not certain claims about certain men are verifiable or not, particularly when . . .

The Jesus miracle stories are more verifiable than many of our ancient historical facts. In many cases there is ONLY ONE SOURCE for an historical fact, and yet we believe it. And in some cases the source is dated 100 or 200 or even 300 years later than the reported fact, and yet we believe it. Plutarch is believed for some events which happened 400 or 500 years earlier, and he is the ONLY source. So how is it "verifiable" if he alone reports it and it happened centuries earlier? And yet it's reasonable to believe it, based on that one source. And physical evidence like coins and statues etc. are usually non-existent, but we still believe the written source anyway, even if it's not "verifiable."

. . . particularly when those claims involve events that could not possibly have happened as described according to such things as the laws of physics or . . .

So you're just falling back on the dogma that no miracles can ever happen. You're admitting that this is really the only evidence against the Jesus miracle acts.

For miracle claims we require extra evidence. One source is not enough. But if there are extra sources, then the claim becomes more credible. For the Jesus miracle acts we have extra sources, far more than is required for normal events. And for non-normal events like miracles, there is no standard universal rule establishing how much extra evidence is required.

. . . according to such things as the laws of physics or biology, let alone common . . .

The Mad Monk Rasputin did something which standard biological or medical science cannot explain. He caused a child to recover from a blood disease. It's a historical fact that the child did recover and that Rasputin appeared to have caused it somehow. There are only theories how it happened, but no certainty. So the record of this gives us reports of something happening which cannot be explained and seems contrary to medical science. The reports that it happened are believed, regardless of the conflict with known medical science. So if there are sufficient reports, extra evidence, then it's reasonable to believe it, regardless of the conflict with known science.

. . . the laws of physics or biology, let alone common sense and basic logic.

Those do not overrule the reports of what happened, based on written documents from the time, if there's more than one source. There is no fixed rule on how much extra evidence is required. And the "laws of physics" etc. are not fixed to one precise theory of how the "laws" work, or how they apply to every situation. Nor can anyone's theory of "common sense" or "logic" overrule a reported event for which we have extra sources. Rather, the probability decreases as the claim runs more contrary to common experience, and so we need the extra sources, if it's very unusual. Most miracle claims are rejected because there is too little or no evidence for them, or not enough sources, not because they contradict "logic." We need extra evidence for a miracle claim, and usually there is not this extra evidence, and so the claim is rejected.

And all of that is setting aside the fact that we're talking about extremely ignorant people from thousands of years ago who were . . .

No, the written accounts we rely on are from educated persons, and they knew of the reports circulating and knew that miracle claims were usually false. They generally rejected miracle claims, just as most UNeducated people in those days rejected miracle claims other than standard ancient traditions passed down and believed for many centuries and well-established in the popular culture.

. . . who were all already believers in such things as resurrection and miracles and . . .

No they were not already believers. They did not believe claims about recent heroes resurrecting and performing miracles. They believed only in the ancient legends dating back many centuries and widely believed in the popular culture. There were no recent messiah figures or charlatans or folk heroes believed to have performed miracles, except by only a few odd cult followers who left nothing behind and were not taken seriously, unlike the Jesus followers who were taken seriously because he was an exception to the norm, and so some educated persons recorded the events.

. . . yet these people still did not believe the bullshit that Paul, in particular, was slinging.

Which people? Some believed him and some did not. It is nutty to lump "these people" indiscriminately together and say everyone believed Paul or everyone did not. You can't put everyone into the same category. He was successful in recruiting many believers, but there were many others who scoffed at his claims. That's what we should expect if the Jesus miracles really did happen. We should expect that some would believe it and others would not. Whereas if they did not happen at all, hardly anyone would believe it and there'd be no written record of it left to us because educated persons would not have wasted their time recording such false claims.


(This Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And another pointless gish gallop. Joy.

Here’s the destruction of your entire thesis in one go:

So then you think there is no evidence for any historical events?

There is no evidence that magic is real.

You’re done.

 

[remez]

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?

You just don't get it.

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.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

False. You are assuming your conclusions are true and then working backward from that preconceived notion to your premises. That is categorically NOT the way any argument is constructed. It is, in fact, breaking the cardinal rule of argumentation.

The point is ALWAYS to prove a conclusion is true, not simply assume the conclusion is true.

You know this in regard to any other proposition but your pet beliefs. It is both intellectually lazy and ethically reprehensible.

 

[Rhea]

It is not evidence that anything happened; it is only "evidence" that someone believed something happened.

It's both.

No, it is not.

So then you think there is no evidence for any historical events? How can there be any such evidence other than the written record left to us from someone back then who believed it happened?

All our history record is based on reports of what "someone believed" happened.

No, it is not. Anything that is, however, is typically deemed "apocryphal." That's why we came up with that word.

Whatever you "deem" it, or jargon you apply to it, or word games you play with it, the reason we believe it is that someone back then believed it happened, and they had reason to believe it, probably, and so it's probably true. Though there's no certainty, just probability. If you say "no," then you're saying there is no historical record which is credible.

Lumpy, you seem to be confusing events where the ONLY evidence is hearsay with events for which there is both hearsay AND physical evidence or event for which there is no hearsay, ONLY physical evidence.

For example:

• Only hearsay - The christian religious story
• Both hearsay and physical evidence - Roman roads
• Only physical evidence - prehistoric cave paintings or burial sites or manufactured tools

See, that wasn’t so hard.

 

[abaddon]

remez, can you just show whatever miracle is reasonable?

If God existed, it doesn't make a resurrected man-god reasonable. The miracle in itself has to be reasonable. For example, it has to make sense somehow that a murder like the crucifixion does anything to "sin" (whatever that is). So, scapegoating... what's the reason in it? Resurrection... how does it make other people immortal?

It has to make sense in comparison to what's known generally by all human beings regardless of "worldviews".

There is no "guilt by association" in likening Christian myths to other myths. The point is they all share one trait: they're all phenomena of the human imagination. Nobody is known to experience such events anywhere else. Regardless of anyone's "worldview" or ideology, they're not observed by anybody to exist outside the human imagination.

Skip parsing what you imagine that others assume or presume. I for one don't assume supernaturalism can't happen, there's no "nature only" dogma. I have experience of things theists misdescribe as "supernatural" and they're one-and-all in the imagination only. So it is not presumptuous to neither invest belief nor ascribe reasonability to that which nobody... NOBODY... experiences outside of human imaginings and weird intuitions (like, for example, how killing an animal or person assuages guilt or how rising from the dead confers immortality to anybody).

Just go straight to the positive argument and skip the 'you people blindly assume things' crap.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lumpy, you seem to be confusing events where the ONLY evidence is hearsay with events for which there is both hearsay AND physical evidence or event for which there is no hearsay, ONLY physical evidence.

Lumpy really likes to think that tge only source historians can access is someone writing down 'today i saw a thing happen.' All history is, in Lumpy's mind, just collections of accounts.
This allows his favorite myth to pretend to be just as historicsl as better-evidenced historical discoveries. Examples of other means of corroboration, or other sources will be ignored in favor of him repeating his thesis.