Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
A "copy of a copy of an earlier source" reporting an event is EVIDENCE that the event did happen.
We have the same kind of evidence for the miracles of Jesus that we have for many/most historical events before modern times. I.e., it's written in documents from the time that the events happened.
Perhaps your phrase "some actual evidence that the miracles happened" just means evidence that ANY miracle events ever have happened. Anywhere, by anyone. And your premise is that there is no evidence ever, from any time, or from any source of any kind, that any such event has ever happened.
But all such reports of any events are evidence that those events happened. Obviously some are more credible than others, and some "miracle" claims get low credibility. But others are credible. In addition to the Jesus miracles, reported in documents of the time, we have the accounts of Rasputin healing the Czar's child, and also claims about Edgar Cayce, which have credibility, even if you think they fall short. Some miracle claims are on a level of credibility high enough to be included as part of history, at least as possibilities.
Of course you can just pronounce ALL such claims as not credible, so that, by definition, you rule out all claims of miracles as having any value as evidence.
In which case, how can you demand "evidence" if you first rule out any such possible evidence by imposing the condition that NO miracle event can ever be credible and that ALL such claims are automatically ruled out and disqualified as evidence?
If you define "evidence" out of existence, then obviously there can be no evidence for it.
Many claims of history are subject to doubt, not just miracle claims. Obviously there are claims that are doubted, and some are given low probability, but even in those cases it's incorrect to say there is "no evidence." There is still some small amount of "evidence" if a written source from the time says it happened.
There are some respectable sources which say that some such events did happen or seem to have happened. Like the History Channel, which presents the claims on either side and leaves open the possibility that the "miracle" event did happen. They say Jesus did "heal" people, but the meaning of this is ambiguous. The H.C. says that Edgar Cayce successfully diagnosed illnesses, and prescribed remedies which worked, even though it was not part of medical science at that time.
So there are reports of events in the past, presented by credible sources, which are "evidence" of miracle events (though you can quibble about the "miracle" word, if you want to get bogged down in semantics), and so these events or reports are "evidence" of such miracle events, even though there is doubt. So it's incorrect to say there is no "evidence" for any miracle events. There is such evidence, even if you insist that in all the cases it must be bad evidence or insufficient to make it a credible claim. Which is your conclusion, but not everyone draws the same conclusion. The evidence is there, and some find it convincing but others not. Just because you're not convinced does not mean it isn't evidence.
Then throw out MOST of our sources for ancient history. It's only stuff people wrote with little/no "corroboration."
ALL writings are evidence, regardless whether it's "anonymous." There is no historian who says that "anonymous" writings are excluded as evidence.
There are other anonymous writings, outside the gospels, which are accepted as evidence for historical events. E.g., most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are anonymous, and these are used to determine what events happened. Some of the history taught has been changed or added to in order to bring it into line with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not "copied" but quoting the earlier writing, you must mean.
There is nothing wrong with quoting from an earlier writing. The source is no less reliable just because it quotes phrases from an earlier writing. You are making up your own criteria for "evidence" when you throw out all writings which contain quotes from earlier writings.
Do you believe the claim that a Christian Roman Emperor (Jovian) ordered the burning of a pagan library? There is such an anonymous claim, in a Byzantine writing (the Suda) of the 11th century, quoting an earlier 6th-century writer (John of Antioch) making such a claim about a 4th-century event. This is a "copy of a copy" of an earlier lost writing saying something happened. It's questionable, probably confused, not too reliable, but it is "evidence" that the event happened. This "evidence" is believed by many historians, even though it's from one source only, from the 11th century, quoting a 6th-century source.
It's believed by some because it's "evidence," despite failing your standard for "evidence" which excludes anything which quotes an earlier source. Your standard is your own subjective impulse and nothing more. Historians do not accept your standard which would force them to throw out of the historical record any source which quotes an earlier source. You can't name any historian who throws out all sources which quote an earlier source. You're "making up shit" here.
Overruled! The debunker will answer the question!
THE PROOF that the Jesus miracle acts never really happened: The premise that miracle acts can never happen
That's the whole case.
Your premise is your evidence and the sum total of your case. Good job!
If that were true, then all you'd need to do is provide some actual evidence that the miracles happened.
We have the same kind of evidence for the miracles of Jesus that we have for many/most historical events before modern times. I.e., it's written in documents from the time that the events happened.
It would blow the premise away.
Perhaps your phrase "some actual evidence that the miracles happened" just means evidence that ANY miracle events ever have happened. Anywhere, by anyone. And your premise is that there is no evidence ever, from any time, or from any source of any kind, that any such event has ever happened.
But all such reports of any events are evidence that those events happened. Obviously some are more credible than others, and some "miracle" claims get low credibility. But others are credible. In addition to the Jesus miracles, reported in documents of the time, we have the accounts of Rasputin healing the Czar's child, and also claims about Edgar Cayce, which have credibility, even if you think they fall short. Some miracle claims are on a level of credibility high enough to be included as part of history, at least as possibilities.
Of course you can just pronounce ALL such claims as not credible, so that, by definition, you rule out all claims of miracles as having any value as evidence.
In which case, how can you demand "evidence" if you first rule out any such possible evidence by imposing the condition that NO miracle event can ever be credible and that ALL such claims are automatically ruled out and disqualified as evidence?
If you define "evidence" out of existence, then obviously there can be no evidence for it.
Many claims of history are subject to doubt, not just miracle claims. Obviously there are claims that are doubted, and some are given low probability, but even in those cases it's incorrect to say there is "no evidence." There is still some small amount of "evidence" if a written source from the time says it happened.
There are some respectable sources which say that some such events did happen or seem to have happened. Like the History Channel, which presents the claims on either side and leaves open the possibility that the "miracle" event did happen. They say Jesus did "heal" people, but the meaning of this is ambiguous. The H.C. says that Edgar Cayce successfully diagnosed illnesses, and prescribed remedies which worked, even though it was not part of medical science at that time.
So there are reports of events in the past, presented by credible sources, which are "evidence" of miracle events (though you can quibble about the "miracle" word, if you want to get bogged down in semantics), and so these events or reports are "evidence" of such miracle events, even though there is doubt. So it's incorrect to say there is no "evidence" for any miracle events. There is such evidence, even if you insist that in all the cases it must be bad evidence or insufficient to make it a credible claim. Which is your conclusion, but not everyone draws the same conclusion. The evidence is there, and some find it convincing but others not. Just because you're not convinced does not mean it isn't evidence.
But anonymous writings copied from other anonymous writings, recording an oral tradition of unknown origin with no corroboration.... THat's not evidence for anything except that people wrote stuff down.
Then throw out MOST of our sources for ancient history. It's only stuff people wrote with little/no "corroboration."
ALL writings are evidence, regardless whether it's "anonymous." There is no historian who says that "anonymous" writings are excluded as evidence.
There are other anonymous writings, outside the gospels, which are accepted as evidence for historical events. E.g., most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are anonymous, and these are used to determine what events happened. Some of the history taught has been changed or added to in order to bring it into line with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
. . . copied from other anonymous writings, . . .
Not "copied" but quoting the earlier writing, you must mean.
There is nothing wrong with quoting from an earlier writing. The source is no less reliable just because it quotes phrases from an earlier writing. You are making up your own criteria for "evidence" when you throw out all writings which contain quotes from earlier writings.
Do you believe the claim that a Christian Roman Emperor (Jovian) ordered the burning of a pagan library? There is such an anonymous claim, in a Byzantine writing (the Suda) of the 11th century, quoting an earlier 6th-century writer (John of Antioch) making such a claim about a 4th-century event. This is a "copy of a copy" of an earlier lost writing saying something happened. It's questionable, probably confused, not too reliable, but it is "evidence" that the event happened. This "evidence" is believed by many historians, even though it's from one source only, from the 11th century, quoting a 6th-century source.
It's believed by some because it's "evidence," despite failing your standard for "evidence" which excludes anything which quotes an earlier source. Your standard is your own subjective impulse and nothing more. Historians do not accept your standard which would force them to throw out of the historical record any source which quotes an earlier source. You can't name any historian who throws out all sources which quote an earlier source. You're "making up shit" here.
Why is it that ONLY ONE such person emerged as a deity who reportedly did miracles, confirmed in multiple sources, within decades of the reported events?
Asking leading questions isn't evidence, ei . . .
Overruled! The debunker will answer the question!
Last edited: