Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[remez]

Anything is reasonable if you are allowed arbitrary premises. But your aren't, so it isn't.

You have no premise to reach that conclusion, unless you arbitrarily change the granted premise of Christianity. The question was why are miracles reasonable to Christians?

Being a clever dick might make you feel good, but it makes everyone else think you are a wanker. Only if that is your goal in life would I recommend that you persist with it.

Well it is also quite arbitrary to equate being clever to being a dick and doubly arbitrarily to equate my reasoned response to being a clever dick.
Thus to that I must respond.........................
Anything is reasonable if you are allowed arbitrarily premises. But you aren't, so it isn't.

 

[remez]

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.

Thanks.
That was the only point I had to make.

The context of my query has more to do with the foundation of the belief that Biblegod exists.

Ok.
But that is a different line of reasoning altogether.
If you wish for me to address that. Then please......................

There are many possible explanations for the origin of the Jesus mythology that do not involve supernatural events or the existence of a supernatural creator, and are thus better or more likely candidates for the explanation than the actual occurrence of supernatural events.

..... give me your best one so we can discuss if it is a better explanation. Remember.....Corinthians clearly states that if Jesus has not risen from the dead then our trust in him is in vain. Can't lay it on the line any greater than that.

Lumpy appears unwilling to consider other options that are based on naturalistic explanations because he is biased in the matter, and that is what we have been talking about here, and in an older thread.

Well then you shouldn't "lump" us altogether...........but seriously........ I can't and won't speak for Lumpy but I am willing to discuss your best natural explanation.

 

[remez]

"The theist" has rationalizations for believing an entity or force of some sort, that he calls "God", exists and miraculously created this universe. Thus if a "philosopher's God" (a first cause) exists then, assuming that abstraction is the same mythological character that does ANY of the events that are "testified" in the gospels, then those alleged events become believable as history

Yes........the more concise version.........If God exists and created the universe then miracles are possible.

The connection is flimsy.

How so? Remember the context was Christianity.

Do all the miracles of all religions seem reasonable?

No.

Why is that particular mythology the most "reasonable" one to believe?

Great question and I have a ready reasoned response.
But you first.
How was the logic/connection flimsy?

 

[remez]

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.

Essentially this is a simple modus ponens argument.

P → Q
P
⊢ Q

In this case

P="God can perform miracles that violate the laws of nature."
Q="God can make Jesus perform miracles that violate the laws of nature."

The logic is valid but the argument has yet to be demonstrated to be sound. In order to be a sound argument a god who can perform miracles that defy the laws of nature must be demonstrated to exist. To date nobody has produced such a god, nor has anyone been able to produce evidence of the influence of such a god that can withstand critical scrutiny. This is true under the weight of millions of such claims. In spite of this it is always possible that such a god exists. It is equally possible that the next time I let go of a lead weight it will plummet skywards rather than towards the surface of the planet.

This is because of the principle of inductive reasoning. If an observation can be made reliably by anyone who cares to perform the same tests, and if nobody ever observes contrary results it is rational to accept that the observation reflects reality.

Miracle claims parallel the observations of gravitational phenomena perfectly. If I watch a magician levitate a person or object I can be certain that if I find out how it happened I will discover that no miraculous suspension of the laws of physics were involved. There will be a support structure somewhere that facilitates the illusion. If I hear someone claim that there is someone who can accomplish this without resorting to any tricks I can be certain that they are either deluded or lying. Invariably such claims can be demonstrated to be false.

Similarly, every time a supernatural claim has been made and it was possible to validate whether or not the supernatural was involved, not once has it ever been demonstrated that it was through the agency of some supernatural power. There is never a monster under the bed. All we are left with are unverifiable claims. God heals headaches regularly but never restores an amputated limb. The effects of God's power is exactly the same as it would be if God did not exist.

Because of these things it is reasonable to reject such claims. This is no more dogmatic than accepting the truth about what is going to happen when someone suspends a lead weight several inches from the floor and then lets go.

Jesus could have demonstrated what he was talking about by moving a mountain into the sea. Or he could have actually given believers that ability to be used today when someone is trapped under an automobile or something. We'd be able to investigate and be amazed at the repeatable power of God when called upon. Instead, every miracle recorded about Jesus left absolutely no trace of it having been performed, down to and including the cursed fig tree. What's more, stories of these miracles didn't begin to surface until decades after their alleged occurrence, conveniently eliminating any chance of investigation or gainsay by people who happened to be there, assuming this Jesus character actually existed at all.

Far from being "evidence" as Lumpenproletariat keeps insisting, these tales are laughable relics of a bronze-age mythology that as a species we've outgrown. Sure there will be people clinging to it for decades, perhaps even centuries. But it has already evolved way past the days when people wasted tons of money and resources attempting to find relics of a story that never happened.

shortened....

In order to be a sound argument a god who can perform miracles that defy the laws of nature must be demonstrated to exist.

OR................ as in this case be........ clearly granted as the given.


Hence it is reasonable to conclude that IF god exists and created the universe then miracles are possible.

nor has anyone been able to produce evidence of the influence of such a god that can withstand critical scrutiny.

In order for that conclusion to be sound you must defend your epistemic presumption of materialistic naturalism. Good luck.

 

[atrib]

There are many possible explanations for the origin of the Jesus mythology that do not involve supernatural events or the existence of a supernatural creator, and are thus better or more likely candidates for the explanation than the actual occurrence of supernatural events.

..... give me your best one so we can discuss if it is a better explanation. Remember.....Corinthians clearly states that if Jesus has not risen from the dead then our trust in him is in vain. Can't lay it on the line any greater than that.

Lumpy appears unwilling to consider other options that are based on naturalistic explanations because he is biased in the matter, and that is what we have been talking about here, and in an older thread.

Well then you shouldn't "lump" us altogether...........but seriously........ I can't and won't speak for Lumpy but I am willing to discuss your best natural explanation.

There are a variety of possible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the Jesus mythology, and I have mentioned those on more than once occasion in this thread. My personal opinion is that the stories of Jesus are a product of the human imagination. People have been making up shit since time immemorial, and there is nothing to distinguish the Jesus myths from other myths. If you want to make the case that Jesus existed and performed the miracles that are attributed to him in the Bible, it is incumbent on you to make the positive case.

 

[atrib]

In order for that conclusion to be sound you must defend your epistemic presumption of materialistic naturalism.

What else is there? Serious question.

 

[Atheos]

In order for that conclusion to be sound you must defend your epistemic presumption of materialistic naturalism.

What else is there? Serious question.

An even more serious question I'm pondering is "Where did I say I had reached a conclusion that I thought was sound?" I never said any such thing. Inductive reasoning is not about reaching a conclusion, it's about determining probabilities of truth based on observation. I stand behind my observations about supernatural phenomena. I don't believe miracles occur for the same reasons I don't believe a lead weight will plummet skyward if I hold it several inches off the ground and let go of it. I'm willing to be proven wrong on either count, but no such evidence has ever been forthcoming.

 

[remez]

My personal opinion is that the stories of Jesus are a product of the human imagination.

Still too vague.

So lets set the stage for a real discussion.

Lying (disciple imagination) and the Resurrection (the miracle).

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and buried
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 positively assert that the best explanation of those four minimal facts is obvious........Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.
vs.
You asserting that lying is the better explanation.

So in order to discuss this I need to know what specifically you are saying is the lie.

For example: The disciples did truthfully experience the death and empty tomb but lied about the Resurrection.
or They lied about the death of Jesus.

What was their specific lie as it relates to the Resurrection?

People have been making up shit since time immemorial,

Granted, but that in "Know" way infers that people always make up lies. If that is your criterion of rejection then all of history needs rejection. Your process of rejection must be consistent to be considered rational.

nothing to distinguish the Jesus myths from other myths.

Perhaps we'll see. For now let's focus on a naturalistic vs. miraculous explanation for the Resurrection.

If you want to make the case that Jesus existed

Wait.
If you are going to deny that Jesus was a real historical figure, then we really have nothing to talk about. You stand outside of collective reasoning. Your skepticism is too severe and likely inconsistent and thus arbitrary.

it is incumbent on you to make the positive case.

I positively assert that the best explanation for the four minimal facts cited above is the Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.

But it was you that asserted that there were better naturalistic explanations for the resurrection and the best one was that the disciples lied, thus you need to make your case as well. Court has begun.

So specifically show me how lying is the better explanation for those four minimal facts. What specifically were they lying about. His actual death? The empty tomb? Seeing him risen? Other?

 

[remez]

In order for that conclusion to be sound you must defend your epistemic presumption of materialistic naturalism.

What else is there? Serious question.

My comment regarding epistemology was simply to clarify not to lead the thread astray. So for now suffice it to say there are many others and the topic is voluminous and contentious. Enjoy the search.

 

[remez]

nor has anyone been able to produce evidence of the influence of such a god that can withstand critical scrutiny.

In order for that conclusion to be sound you must defend your epistemic presumption of materialistic naturalism.

An even more serious question I'm pondering is "Where did I say I had reached a conclusion that I thought was sound?" I never said any such thing.

Did you think this stated conclusion of yours.................

nor has anyone been able to produce evidence of the influence of such a god that can withstand critical scrutiny.

.....is sound?

 

[Treedbear]

...

If you want to make the case that Jesus existed

Wait.
If you are going to deny that Jesus was a real historical figure, then we really have nothing to talk about. You stand outside of collective reasoning. Your skepticism is too severe and likely inconsistent and thus arbitrary.
...

Did Jesus Exist?

Even if a rabbi with that name did exist at that time,

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and buried
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

why should these be considered facts?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Did Jesus Exist?

Even if a rabbi with that name did exist at that time,

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and buried
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

why should these be considered facts?

Particularly since:

1. Jesus was not "buried;" he was merely placed (bodily wrapped in annointed, medicinal linens no less applied almost immediately after having been taken down of the crucifix) within an above ground, cave-like "tomb"
2. The tomb was not empty--there was a "young man" sitting inside--and he told the women that Jesus was down in the city
3. "Risen" does not mean "resurrected," so, at best, the "disciples" merely saw someone they may have thought had died, but had not
4. No "disciple" beside Paul (that we know of and he merely had a "vision") was "transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations" unless by "transformed" you mean surprised he hadn't died.

We know from Paul that only he believed in a resurrection and he had to argue vehemently for his belief to supersede what other members believed (and they were primarily gentiles and "Hellenized" Jews; iow, non-Jews who would have been far more likely to believe in something like resurrection from the dead due to their previous pagan indoctrination, so if you can't even convince a former pagan that your leader resurrected from the dead, then it's a safe bet few first century Jews believed such nonsense).

We don't really have much from any of the alleged "disciples" about what they believed in regard to "resurrection." That is almost exclusively the domain of the so-called "passion narrative" synoptic gospel authors, who wrote decades later, the first of which (Mark, at least in canon) was clearly a Roman, not a Jew and the others simply rewrote his story, embellishing it along the way and adding their own tidbits as they went.

 

[bilby]

Did Jesus Exist?

Even if a rabbi with that name did exist at that time,

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and buried
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

why should these be considered facts?

Every one of them is a completely unwarranted assertion. There is no reason whatsoever to accept any of these four claims.

Nor need we fall into the rhetorical trap of appearing to accept the additional unwarranted and unjust claim that if these are untrue, then they are 'lies'.

An untrue statement might be a lie; But it might also be a simple error, or misunderstanding.

If someone says that they believe the Earth is flat, it's possible tbat they are lying; But it's far more likely that they are simply stupid and wrong.

 

[atrib]

Still too vague.

So lets set the stage for a real discussion.

Lying (disciple imagination) and the Resurrection (the miracle).

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and buried
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 positively assert that the best explanation of those four minimal facts is obvious........Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.
vs.
You asserting that lying is the better explanation.

Skepticism is, or should be the appropriate reaction to the naked assertion that a corpse was reanimated and flew up into the sky. If we cannot agree on this basic premise there is no discussion to be had.

Assuming that the story is fabricated is a reasonable position based on the knowledge that humans have been making up shit since time immemorial. It is far more reasonable than believing in an intervention by a supernatural entity from outside the known universe, who needed the barbaric sacrifice of an innocent human god-clone to give itself permission to forgive humans for being born the way they had been created by said entity.

 

[Learner]

Did Jesus Exist?

Even if a rabbi with that name did exist at that time,

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and buried
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

why should these be considered facts?

I'll just say briefly, that a lot has been added for "consideration" (looking at various details) since the publication originally dated 1996, republished 1998 which you kindly suppiled in the link. I did read something in the paragraph, the comparisons regarding existing materials - Caesar having his image on existing mint coins and Jesus not having any. Jesus is not the only Jew that doesn't have mint coins with their own images on them, simply speaking

 

[Learner]

Particularly since:

1. Jesus was not "buried;" he was merely placed (bodily wrapped in annointed, medicinal linens no less applied almost immediately after having been taken down of the crucifix) within an above ground, cave-like "tomb"
2. The tomb was not empty--there was a "young man" sitting inside--and he told the women that Jesus was down in the city
3. "Risen" does not mean "resurrected," so, at best, the "disciples" merely saw someone they may have thought had died, but had not
4. No "disciple" beside Paul (that we know of and he merely had a "vision") was "transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations" unless by "transformed" you mean surprised he hadn't died.

I thought buried or burial is sufficient enough, since there hasn't been any previous issue where one questions " What do you mean by burial ?" or "how are you defining buried or empty?" like atheists often asks for the definition of God they are to be discussing about.

Burial word widely accepted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Jesus

I know you know what Remez means in the above ( or do I ?).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The difference is between a body being buried in the ground and one being wrapped in medicinal bandages and placed in an easily accessible (and environmentally stable) cave.

Had Jesus been buried in the ground and then three days later clawed his way out, there may be something to the idea of resurrection. Instead, we have nearly everything related telling us that, at best, Jesus was merely thought to be dead, but actually wasn’t, which would easily explain why a myth started around him (and why no one believed it).

We have Pilate being shocked that Jesus was supposed to have died after only half a day on the cross (it normally takes several days for people crucified to die, which is why it’s such an horrific form of capital punishment intended as a prolonged suffering example/deterrent for others); Jesus being wrapped in burial linens, which have been soaked in aloe and myrrh (both of which have significant anti-bacterial and healing properties, particularly for the types of injuries Jesus supposedly would have suffered from, like the head wounds from the “crown” and the back lacerations from being whipped, etc); and placed inside a cave, which would be considerably cooler and protected from exposure and the elements, etc; and when the women show up, the cave is open and there’s a young man just sitting in it for no stated reason.

He’s not an “angel” or other divine being; just a young man dressed in a white robe. Presumably the same unknown young man from Mark 14:

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

He doesn’t say Jesus is resurrected, just that he is “risen” and that they can go see him now down in the city.

End of story. So, even if all of that were accurate, it still would not amount to resurrection from the dead. The most logical answer—and most probable, if those elements were all accurate (including the embellishments of him crying out and being stabbed by a soldier to prove it)—all points to someone mistaken for dead by people who weren’t doctors and had no advanced medical training as we have today and Jesus was simply in a mild coma from the trauma of being beaten and tortured and bleeding out, etc.

And when you add on the fact that it’s only Paul—an outsider, who didn’t witness any of this—desperately insisting that followers must believe that Jesus resurrected or else there is no religion (which in turn means that the followers did NOT believe Jesus was resurrected or else Paul wouldn’t have had the need to write), then, again, it’s easy to see how even assuming most of what is related is true, it could easily be a case of mythological embellishment.

 

[remez]

Skepticism is, or should be the appropriate reaction to the naked assertion that a corpse was reanimated and flew up into the sky. If we cannot agree on this basic premise there is no discussion to be had.

I absolutely agree. However I did not nakedly assert my case as you nakedly asserted. Again…………….

So lets set the stage for a real discussion.

Lying (disciple imagination) and the Resurrection (the miracle).

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and (buried) 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 positively assert that the best explanation of those four minimal facts is obvious........Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.
vs.
You asserting that lying is the better explanation.

So make your case that lying is the better explanation. What were they lying about? Why?

All you have presented thus far is

Assuming that the story is fabricated is a reasonable position based on the knowledge that humans have been making up shit since time immemorial.

…… is very weak reasoning. You have two problems to iron out there.

1. As a matter of reasoning it’s actually self-defeating. Look again. You are appealing to history to make your case that all history is unreliable. Here is what you are really reasoning there……We can deny history because there is a history that people lie.


2. You, in order to be consistent would have to reject all of history. Which is a skepticism so severe, it simply bankrupts the economy of your reasoning altogether. Example: Americans weren’t the first to the moon. They made it up because people have a history of lying.

It is far more reasonable than believing in an intervention by a supernatural entity from outside the known universe……

Not so fast………………. You have not made your case yet, because…….

1. My assertion was not a naked assertion as you nakedly asserted.

2. Your reasoning to reject history there is self-defeating and bankrupt.

Thus it is incumbent upon you to actually address my case with some reasoning that is reasonable.

who needed the barbaric sacrifice of an innocent human god-clone to give itself permission to forgive humans for being born the way they had been created by said entity.

First off….this is an overt red herring, but more importantly…………..

You can’t have it both ways. This is the consistency I was addressing above. You can’t reject history because people lie and then erroneously attempt to use history to further your case.

 

[remez]

I thought buried or burial is sufficient enough,

Note my second fact was the TOMB was empty. So yes I should have phrased it better but it didn't change the point whatsoever. Easily to clarify.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I thought buried or burial is sufficient enough,

Note my second fact was the TOMB was empty.

Again, the tomb was not empty. When the women arrived, they found the tomb open and there was a "young man" inside of it, evidently waiting to tell them (or anyone, I guess) that Jesus was down in the city. Presumably the same "young man" that was by Jesus' side when Jesus got arrested.

So, that silly little thing called "logic" (or just plain common sense) would dictate at the very least that the kid was a devotee or otherwise some form of assistant to Jesus and the disciples and was told to sit there (presumably by Jesus) to let any of Jesus' followers that might be dropping by the tomb to know that he didn't actually die.

And that story--a nearly dead man who survived (after being taken down early enough and wrapped in medicinal bandages and placed in a climate controlled cave instead of buried in the dirt or left to rot in the sun on a cross)--got turned into "he resurrected from the DEAD!"

Or, even simpler, nobody--including Jesus--knew that he had simply slipped into a coma and so even he thought he had resurrected from the dead and cue mythology that in turn grows over time.

Regardless, the fact that the tomb was open and not empty--some kid was waiting inside--clearly destroys what police would call the "chain of custody" as to what, when and how.

Now, if the women had shown up the next day, the tomb was sealed and they opened it (as in later embellishments) and the tomb was empty, except for the bloodied burial linens, well, we'd STILL not have a story of someone who resurrected, because, where's the body?

So for a story about someone dying--full on and truly, medically dead--and then resurrecting from the dead, then it should have been the women somehow roll back the stone and witness Jesus lying dead inside the tomb and then when one of them touches him or something and he suddenly gets up and while even that is still not beyond the scope of being in a coma or the like and just waking up, at least THAT version of events would be what is necessary for any kind of claim for resurrection.

So not a single one of the three versions of the story depict anything like what would be necessary for a story about someone's dead body resurrecting from the dead.