Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Rhea]

I know what it is in regards to today's court. I also understand how historical criticism works. You are getting the two mixed up. Did you read my last post? What you are inferring here would nullify all that we know about all of ancient history. We know nothing of Alexander the Great if all is judged by only "your hearsay process".

Bullshit. You keep saying this, people keep calling you on it, you keep ignoring the correction, and you keep repeating it again and again.


Most of history is corroborated by PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

You keep claiming that only hearsay exists in all of history, as if no grave was ever found, no wall, no DNA, no sword, no skull.

It’s stupid. What kind of con-man keeps trying to sell that all of historical knowledge is o more than what the jesus story provides?

That’s stupid and it’s bullshit. And if you don’t even know that there is a difference between accounts for which there is only hearsay and accounts for which there is also independent sources of hearsay and even moreso physical evidence, then you have no business preaching your snake oil.

It’s pathetic Remez.

There’s a difference between the hearsay ONLY story in your bible and the rich and complete historical record that includes multiple disciplines of study.

No one believes your bullshit evasion. I don’t even believe you’re doing it accidentally.

 

[steve_bank]

Another Christian retort. God does not have to obey how reality works for us humans. After all he, she, or it is 'god'.

That to me, is nothing more than an axiomatic statement about the relationship that exists between a creator and its created. If that is incorrect as you infer, then tell me what is correct.

Axiomatic? Too intellectual. Religion is about feelings. God created the universe. Biblically he caused destruction at will. God controls reality. It is in the bible, numerous examples.

As I see it. Your response is a complete non-sequitur. You aren’t defending the pseudo-complaint I challenged. You just brought forth a new set of feelings.

Thank you for giving me a Wednesday deep belly laugh. It will last me to the weekend. You are got by the toe and can't get free.

If you deny god can do anything in our reality then as a Christian you are speaking heresy. Christians pray for divine intervention in their lives. Christians claim actual intervention all the time.

The bible along with Christian faith, and a philosophical analysis are incompatible. Faith is not an axiomatic system. It is belief in things which can not be proven, the supernatural.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I see it. Your response is a complete non-sequitur. You aren’t defending the pseudo-complaint I challenged. You just brought forth a new set of feelings.

Thank you for giving me a Wednesday deep belly laugh. It will last me to the weekend. You are got by the toe and can't get free.

If you deny god can do anything in our reality then as a Christian you are speaking heresy. Christians pray for divine intervention in their lives. Christians claim actual intervention all the time.

The bible along with Christian faith, and a philosophical analysis are incompatible. Faith is not an axiomatic system. It is belief in things which can not be proven, the supernatural.

Religion is a firm belief that magic is real if you really, really, truly believe it to be sincerely enough.

 

[skepticalbip]

I know what it is in regards to today's court. I also understand how historical criticism works. You are getting the two mixed up. Did you read my last post? What you are inferring here would nullify all that we know about all of ancient history. We know nothing of Alexander the Great if all is judged by only "your hearsay process". So I asked you to address that contradiction. How do the historians determine what is true and what is not about the ancient past?
.

You obviously don't know how 'historical criticism works'. Historical understanding relies on many independent sources and physical evidence all combining in a common account before it is taken seriously. There is no history that is taken seriously on one common hearsay tale. The biblical Jesus story is one hearsay story repeated by four connected writers that heard the same hearsay story (or conspired to create the story)... there is nothing else.

Alexander had a cronicaler traveling with him that recorded first hand the exploits. Aside from that there is several completely independent stories by those cultures he conquered that corroborate the cronicaler's account. Aside from that there is archeological evidence that corroborates those accounts. And even at that, not all the stories are accepted as historical fact because there isn't sufficient evidence but there certainly is sufficient evidence that Alexander did exist and did conquer much of the then known world.

The Trojan war was considered to be just a mythological story by historians for quite a while because the hearsay story was all that was available. That is until Schliemann uncovered the ruins of the old city that provided archeological corroboration for the story. The study of ancient Turkish legends turned up independent corroboration. The Trojan war is now accepted as a historical event because of all the independent evidence but still the several miracle stories of the Greek gods' involvement in the war isn't considered historical fact because the only evidence for the Greek god's involvement is Greek hearsay stories. However, your Jesus stories have pretty much the same "evidence" as the "evidence" for Greek gods as it was told in the hearsay stories of Trojan war so I have to assume that you believe the Greek gods and their involvement in that war must be true too even though historians don't.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What you are inferring here would nullify all that we know about all of ancient history.

That's not a counter-argument. And not "all" of course; just those parts that are hearsay accounts. No legitimate historian considers ancient--or any--hearsay as factual. You are hoisting yourself with you own petard.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What you are inferring here would nullify all that we know about all of ancient history.

That's not a counter-argument. And not "all" of course; just those parts that are hearsay accounts. No legitimate historian considers ancient--or any--hearsay as factual. You are hoisting yourself with you own petard.

But to his credit, it appears that he's able to offer this argument much more succinctly than Lumpy's forty walls-of-text to do the same thing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Succinct Sophistry. I like it.

 

[remez]

posts 419 and 424

So it appears you understood and concede to my case against your hearsay reasoning process. Notice, I didn’t just state your reasoning was wrong, I explained where your reasoning was wrong. Now here you only assert………………

AHA. so by your "reasoning".

….that my reasoning leads to this……….

AHA. so by your "reasoning" there have been a hell of a lot of real live gods and demigods that have walked among us such as Mithras, Zoroaster, all the Egyptian pharaoh gods, etc. and even Hanuman, the Hindu flying monkey god, and Ganesha, the Hindu elephant headed god. All have been reported to be real and to have miraculous powers.

I don’t see it that at all. I specifically provided an argument for one miracle to explain one event. I can’t even make a case for most of the Biblical miracles on a case by case basis. Rejecting your unreasonable hearsay rule for embracing historical criticism and reasoning does not leave any door open to your extension. At least as I see it. So please help me out and show me the open door you purport. Serious request.
Because you then repent and query………………….

The question is why you are so fixated only on this one god, Jesus, while you ignore the thousands of others that are as well or, in some cases, better documented. Special pleading not being allowed, I again ask why?

Precisely.
And the answer is really quite easy and reasonable.
Because I have good reason (supported by science, philosophy and theology) to believe that the Biblical God is the real, one and only, transcendent creator of a universe/nature that most plausibly began to exist. All other alleged non-transcendent gods can reasonably be rejected. That leaves only? Yeah…look it up.
Again…………Reasons not a blind faith.
You and I have battled over that in the past, on numerous occasions.

You may have to look up the meaning of 'special pleading' since you don't seem to understand.

Be Fair.
Alleging special pleading is too lazy. Seriously. I’m fully aware of the basic fallacies. Read post 392 (very last quote and response) where I exposed the circular fallacy in abaddon’s reasoning regarding his begging the question for naturalism. Really it was almost to the emotional degree of special pleading.
But here is the difference………I gave him a chance…….
I did not just nakedly allege it like you just did. I presented a case for him to address.
Please defend or withdraw your weak allegation. Give me the chance to address your special pleading allegation.

Now I worked out that response and then noticed you added more (post 424) so for convenience I also address that here………….
By way of quick response…..welcome aboard.
More thoroughly………….

You obviously don't know how 'historical criticism works'. Historical understanding relies on many independent sources and physical evidence all combining in a common account before it is taken seriously.

I completely embrace that. I have been citing historical criticism along. I USED IT to battle against your “hearsay procedure” that would cast all of history into the trash bin. How can you now somehow cite it against me so generally? In the same fashion.

There is no history that is taken seriously on one common hearsay tale.

I agree. Why would you reason I do not?

Alexander had a cronicaler traveling with him that recorded first hand the exploits. Aside from that there is several completely independent stories by those cultures he conquered that corroborate the cronicaler's account. Aside from that there is archeological evidence that corroborates those accounts. And even at that, not all the stories are accepted as historical fact because there isn't sufficient evidence but there certainly is sufficient evidence that Alexander did exist and did conquer much of the then known world.

Ditto my last response.

Alexander had a cronicaler traveling with him that recorded first hand the exploits. Aside from that there is several completely independent stories by those cultures he conquered that corroborate the cronicaler's account. Aside from that there is archeological evidence that corroborates those accounts. And even at that, not all the stories are accepted as historical fact because there isn't sufficient evidence but there certainly is sufficient evidence that Alexander did exist and did conquer much of the then known world.

snore

However, your Jesus stories have pretty much the same "evidence" as the "evidence" for Greek gods as it was told in the hearsay stories of Trojan war so I have to assume that you believe the Greek gods and their involvement in that war must be true too even though historians don't.

That is obviously a poorly research conclusion on so many different levels. I can’t even begin to guess at you’re reasoning. So as always………… Of the four simple obvious facts I provided….What is it you disagree with and why? Abductive reasoning? Give me a chance to specifically respond.

 

[remez]

is obvious

So the support--the proof--of your argument is that your conclusion is "obvious." And that conclusion is:

Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.

So, your conclusion is magic is real. And this is "obvious."

That was completely dishonest.
Furthering my resolve to just let you go.
And since this……………

Same. So your list of four "facts" is actually:

1. Assertion
2. Contradiction
3. Hearsay
4. Hearsay

….is the same surface objection you offered earlier
therefore
my response remains……………

You overtly have no clue. Thus for me to continue at your surface only level would be perceptively unfruitful here. Should you get beneath the surface of your objections...to the reasoning of those objections, which I challenged....then we would have something further to explore. Right here and now it just looks like mudslinging.

So.....
Thank you for the informative discussion.
and...
Have a great day.

 

[remez]

I know what it is in regards to today's court. I also understand how historical criticism works. You are getting the two mixed up. Did you read my last post? What you are inferring here would nullify all that we know about all of ancient history. We know nothing of Alexander the Great if all is judged by only "your hearsay process".

Bullshit. You keep saying this, people keep calling you on it, you keep ignoring the correction, and you keep repeating it again and again.


Most of history is corroborated by PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

You keep claiming that only hearsay exists in all of history, as if no grave was ever found, no wall, no DNA, no sword, no skull.

Slow down. I agree with you in regards to physical evidence being important. That is part of historical criticism and the reasoning I was referring to when I was combating skep. You are simply missing the fact that skep was making that “hearsay” case against me. And what you quoted me saying was the outcome of his reasoning. I simply exposed the error. I’m in agreement with you that physical evidence has its place here.

 

[remez]

To me you originally stated ….

Another Christian retort. God does not have to obey how reality works for us humans. After all he, she, or it is 'god'.

….. I did not see you saying anything there other than the creator has rule over his creation.
But you seemed to be inferring more. Thus I asked for a simple clarification. Go back and read it.
Your response clarified nothing. It just seemed like you emoted a new list of different complaints.
Now this……………..

If you deny god can do anything in our reality then as a Christian you are speaking heresy.

I’m fine with that charge coming from your misunderstanding. From my reasoning God can do what is logically possible. Therefore he can’t do what is logically impossible.

Christians pray for divine intervention in their lives. Christians claim actual intervention all the time.

I concur.

The bible along with Christian faith, and a philosophical analysis are incompatible.

So you say. There is nothing there for me to do but disagree. You gave such a general statement….I don’t understand what you find incompatible. It could be anything from your perspective. I haven’t a clue what you are getting at. All I have asked for is clarification.

Faith is not an axiomatic system.

How and where did I say it was? My only reference to something being axiomatic was strictly your statement stating as I read it the relationship between creator and creation. I did not see the problem you were getting at. It was to me….like you said and another Christian retort is that triangles have three sides. Hence my comment for clarification.


Now this is new……

It is belief in things which can not be proven, the supernatural.

….I don’t see where it fits in what you were getting at, because I don’t know what you were getting at. I was not arguing with you I was asking for clarification.
But….
I disagree with your last statement there. You are speaking of a blind faith. My trust in God’s existence is not blind. My argument on the table is not blind. My trust in the supernatural is not blind. I have reasons for those supported by evidence. You don’t get to dictate what I believe and why I believe it. If you want to argue with a blind faith Christian then ignore me and go find one.

If you want to deal with my argument then deal with it in the context of reason I provided it.
It was not blind faith.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That was completely dishonest.

No, that was completely dishonest. You are a shining example of the harms of cult indoctrination.

 

[skepticalbip]

So it appears you understood and concede to my case against your hearsay reasoning process. Notice, I didn’t just state your reasoning was wrong, I explained where your reasoning was wrong. Now here you only assert………………

….that my reasoning leads to this……….

I don’t see it that at all. I specifically provided an argument for one miracle to explain one event. I can’t even make a case for most of the Biblical miracles on a case by case basis. Rejecting your unreasonable hearsay rule for embracing historical criticism and reasoning does not leave any door open to your extension. At least as I see it. So please help me out and show me the open door you purport. Serious request.
Because you then repent and query………………….

The question is why you are so fixated only on this one god, Jesus, while you ignore the thousands of others that are as well or, in some cases, better documented. Special pleading not being allowed, I again ask why?

Precisely.
And the answer is really quite easy and reasonable.
Because I have good reason (supported by science, philosophy and theology) to believe that the Biblical God is the real, one and only, transcendent creator of a universe/nature that most plausibly began to exist. All other alleged non-transcendent gods can reasonably be rejected. That leaves only? Yeah…look it up.
Again…………Reasons not a blind faith.
You and I have battled over that in the past, on numerous occasions.

You may have to look up the meaning of 'special pleading' since you don't seem to understand.

Be Fair.
Alleging special pleading is too lazy. Seriously. I’m fully aware of the basic fallacies. Read post 392 (very last quote and response) where I exposed the circular fallacy in abaddon’s reasoning regarding his begging the question for naturalism. Really it was almost to the emotional degree of special pleading.
But here is the difference………I gave him a chance…….
I did not just nakedly allege it like you just did. I presented a case for him to address.
Please defend or withdraw your weak allegation. Give me the chance to address your special pleading allegation.

Now I worked out that response and then noticed you added more (post 424) so for convenience I also address that here………….
By way of quick response…..welcome aboard.
More thoroughly………….

You obviously don't know how 'historical criticism works'. Historical understanding relies on many independent sources and physical evidence all combining in a common account before it is taken seriously.

I completely embrace that. I have been citing historical criticism along. I USED IT to battle against your “hearsay procedure” that would cast all of history into the trash bin. How can you now somehow cite it against me so generally? In the same fashion.

There is no history that is taken seriously on one common hearsay tale.

I agree. Why would you reason I do not?

Alexander had a cronicaler traveling with him that recorded first hand the exploits. Aside from that there is several completely independent stories by those cultures he conquered that corroborate the cronicaler's account. Aside from that there is archeological evidence that corroborates those accounts. And even at that, not all the stories are accepted as historical fact because there isn't sufficient evidence but there certainly is sufficient evidence that Alexander did exist and did conquer much of the then known world.

Ditto my last response.

Alexander had a cronicaler traveling with him that recorded first hand the exploits. Aside from that there is several completely independent stories by those cultures he conquered that corroborate the cronicaler's account. Aside from that there is archeological evidence that corroborates those accounts. And even at that, not all the stories are accepted as historical fact because there isn't sufficient evidence but there certainly is sufficient evidence that Alexander did exist and did conquer much of the then known world.

snore

However, your Jesus stories have pretty much the same "evidence" as the "evidence" for Greek gods as it was told in the hearsay stories of Trojan war so I have to assume that you believe the Greek gods and their involvement in that war must be true too even though historians don't.

That is obviously a poorly research conclusion on so many different levels. I can’t even begin to guess at you’re reasoning. So as always………… Of the four simple obvious facts I provided….What is it you disagree with and why? Abductive reasoning? Give me a chance to specifically respond.

Too many blatant logical fallacies. You really need to study logic. Your rants are entirely based on special pleading, assuming the conclusion, circular reasoning, etc. These have been pointed out to you (in specific detail) several times by several posters but you appear to be completely incapable of self examination, I assume because of your complete ignorance of logic.

 

[abaddon]

Again…………Reasons not a blind faith.

Seems this is the basic point of all your arguing since you first came here. You think you've reasoned things through better than atheists have, so you jump in whenever you see an atheist saying or implying something about "blind faith"; then get voluminously intent to get your point across: 'Not me! See my reasoning, can you SEE it?!'

Let's understand the term "blind faith" since it's clear it informs what the arguments are for.

What is "blind faith"?

1) No reasons at all for a belief, just dogmatic assertions and nothing more.
2) Has 'reasons' for a belief but they seem "reasonable" only because a blind eye is turned to the reasons against that belief.

You always present it as #1.

Personally I've never assumed theists are totally devoid of reasons. The problem is they're lame reasons that result in dogmatic assertions even though some rationalization process has been applied. So when I see someone say "you've got no reason to believe" it clearly means "you don't have reasons that'd convince anybody that wasn't already convinced". I think you see the occasional statement like "you've got no reason to believe" and read it all too literally.

So... anyone who sees this and wants to answer: What does "blind faith" mean?

 

[skepticalbip]

Again…………Reasons not a blind faith.

Seems this is the basic point of all your arguing since you first came here. You think you've reasoned things through better than atheists have, so you jump in whenever you see an atheist saying or implying something about "blind faith"; then get voluminously intent to get your point across: 'Not me! See my reasoning, can you SEE it?!'

Let's understand the term "blind faith" since it's clear it informs what the arguments are for.

What is "blind faith"?

1) No reasons at all for a belief, just dogmatic assertions and nothing more.
2) Has 'reasons' for a belief but they seem "reasonable" only because a blind eye is turned to the reasons against that belief.

You always present it as #1.

Personally I've never assumed theists are totally devoid of reasons. The problem is they're lame reasons that result in dogmatic assertions even though some rationalization process has been applied. So when I see someone say "you've got no reason to believe" it clearly means "you don't have reasons that'd convince anybody that wasn't already convinced". I think you see the occasional statement like "you've got no reason to believe" and read it all too literally.

So... anyone who sees this and wants to answer: What does "blind faith" mean?

Well said... I think you have a decent definition of 'blind faith'.

Blind faith does not mean devoid of reason. It is more assuming the conclusion as absolute truth then reasoning what would be necessary to support the conclusion while dismissing counter reasons.

Remez's 'arguments' reminds me of arguing with someone who 'absolutely knows' that the Moon landing was faked. They are far from devoid of reasoning. They can easily give you pages and pages of argument of why we can not land people on the Moon. The blind faith part is that they ignore or summarily dismiss any evidence offered that we could and did land on the Moon.

 

[steve_bank]

People have reasons to believe in alien abductions, ER UFOs, prior life memories, ghosts, and the resurrection of Jesus.

It is the rationale behind the reasons. There is no objective proof behind any belief in the supernatural. Christians call it god and Jesus with powers. As an atheist I call it a belief in magic. Prayers for intervention by Jesus and others is an an incantation to supernatural beings as in the occult world.

Christianity is no different then the occult. In Catholicism and others the transformation of bread and wine into body and blood which is eaten is ritual cannibalism. One gets the power of the deity by eating part of it.

 

[Politesse]

What's so wrong with magic or the occult?

 

[steve_bank]

If you are Christian then the bible says execute witches and fortuntellers/

God is the one and only in Christianity. The 10 Commandants, the Abrahamic god is the only true god to be worshiped. For the Hebrews any idolatry was an abomination.

The occult has its ugly side. A past example was Aleister Crowley.

As with religion nothing wrong with the occult as long as it is not based on things like bigotry or demaning humans. As long as it harms no one emotionaly or physicaly.

If you want to get naked chanting Satan working into a frenzied orgy, go for it. If it becomes mind control leading to subservience and sexual submissiveness it is just as bad as anything else. Like Christianity the occult is about a sense of personal power, and power over others.

Pagan and what we call occult rituals are mutualy excl;usive with Christianity.

 

[Politesse]

The Bible says a lot of things. Aleister Crowley committed no crimes, as far as I know.

 

[remez]

That was completely dishonest.

No, that was completely dishonest. You are a shining example of the harms of cult indoctrination.

Once again you failed to produce any evidence for your dishonest charge. I at least provided the evidence of your dishonesty. So once again here is my evidence…..….Do you deny that this …..

is obvious

So the support--the proof--of your argument is that your conclusion is "obvious." And that conclusion is:

Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.

So, your conclusion is magic is real. And this is "obvious."

….was a lie?

You obviously made it up.
You lied and inferred it was my reasoning.
You were completely dishonest there.

You had a chance to address it and instead you doubled down.
Your charge of dishonesty against me has no evidence and was simply a childish reaction.
Anyone could see that.