Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Treedbear]

...
Because “people lie” the resurrection is a myth. But at the same time you claim that you don’t reject all of history even though “people lie”. How, without further explanation, is that not arbitrary?

Simply explain how you determine what history is true and what is not. This is important to our conversion

Conversion, or conversation? A Freudian slip, perhaps?

...
A claim that someone rose from the dead, revealing himself to be a God; And changed all of humanity forever - Now THAT'S in the same class as a claim that the Omaha Beach landings were a feint, and the US 1st Infanty Division actually landed at Calais, after which they funded the rest of the war by transmuting lead into gold.

It's going to need an ENORMOUS amount of really hard evidence, if anyone reasonable is going to seriously entertain it as a possibility. But all we have is a few documents that are questionable in other ways. No archeological evidence. No independent documentation - despite the existence of documents from independent observers in that time and place. That's not even close to enough. No serious historian would accept such flimsy support for such a major claim. It's more likely to simply be a made up story. Such tales are commonplace.
...

Bilby that was a very good and thorough answer to remez's question. The main point for me is the part I've quoted here. It's the dearth of corraborating evidence about this resurrection idea that serves as the basis for the belief in everything from the after-life to eternal damnation to that gnawing guilt of original sin and Jesus suffering on the cross. All of the associated baggage that demands more substantial evidence.

 

[Learner]

As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

I hope I was within the "simple as possible" boundries.

 

[Learner]

You claim that I am rejecting history because I don't find the story of a 2,000 year old flying zombie credible. After you and I have agreed that stories about flying zombies should be treated with skepticism. Where?

I'm skeptical of your interpretive understanding here : zombies, re-animated "walking dead" as opposed to: ressurected, being brought back-to-life, a new body. Can be a little misleading for the discussion imo.

 

[bilby]

You claim that I am rejecting history because I don't find the story of a 2,000 year old flying zombie credible. After you and I have agreed that stories about flying zombies should be treated with skepticism. Where?

I'm skeptical of your interpretive understanding here : zombies, re-animated "walking dead" as opposed to: ressurected, being brought back-to-life, a new body. Can be a little misleading for the discussion imo.

Why? What's the significant difference?

Dead body becomes living body again. Whether that's a reanimation or a resurrection is just spin - both words mean the same thing.

 

[Learner]

They were ignorant fishermen living some two thousand years before forensic science even existed. They would have zero qualifications or abilities to accurately determine whether or not he was actually dead.

.. snip ...

It wasn't that long ago that people were still mistakenly thought to be dead when they weren't. In the 1800s, being buried alive was a major fear because it was known to happen. Edgar Allan Poe apparently was obsessed with the idea as he wrote a couple stories, such as 'The Fall of the House of Usher', with that theme. That could be a reason for embalming today.

And these:

I would have thought the "spear" in the side, would have guaranteed death. The roman soldier was making sure it seems. All that posting and you forgot the spear.

 

[bilby]

And these:

I would have thought the "spear" in the side, would have guaranteed death. The roman soldier was making sure it seems. All that posting and you forgot the spear.

Leaving aside the likelihood that someone spinning a yarn about a bloke surviving three days of crucifixion would probably want an excuse for thinking he was dead, when talking to anyone familiar with the length of time crucifixion takes to kill a man; It's certainly not guaranteed that a spear in the side would be fatal.

Christ, people survive gunshot wounds to the head. It's uncommon, but far from miraculous.

 

[Learner]

You claim that I am rejecting history because I don't find the story of a 2,000 year old flying zombie credible. After you and I have agreed that stories about flying zombies should be treated with skepticism. Where?

I'm skeptical of your interpretive understanding here : zombies, re-animated "walking dead" as opposed to: ressurected, being brought back-to-life, a new body. Can be a little misleading for the discussion imo.

Why? What's the significant difference?

Dead body becomes living body again. Whether that's a reanimation or a resurrection is just spin - both words mean the same thing.

The difference is, someone may get confused mixing up two different themes and bring up a silly argument like: If you get bitten by a resurrected individual then you too would be among the..."walking live" ? Hmm.. nevermind.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The difference is, someone may get confused mixing up two different themes

it's not themes, they're verbs. Mostly fictional magic, so you can mix and sort however you want.

Now, in AD&D, the Resurrect spell brings back party members, fully restored. The Raise Dead spell is how you get a skeleton army. They don't get experience points for anything they kill after bring raised.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And these:

I would have thought the "spear" in the side, would have guaranteed death. The roman soldier was making sure it seems. All that posting and you forgot the spear.

No, I didn't actually. I pointed out that it was a later embellishment. There is no spear or piercing of his side in the synoptics, just in John. Regardless, that supposedly occurred right at the end, so even if it were true, that does not necessarily mean it was a fatal blow, particularly when you factor in (again) that Joseph cleaned and wrapped Jesus' body in medicinal linens (bandages, essentially). They called them burial linens in John, but potato/potato:

With Pilate’s permission, [Joseph] came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

Holy crap that's a LOT of myrrh and aloe, both of which have significant antibacterial healing properties, particularly in regard to the kinds of wounds Jesus supposedly had inflicted upon him (i.e., multiple lacerations from the thorns in his skull and from being beaten and whipped; the nail holes supposedly in his feet and/or wrists or hands; etc., and yes, even his side "piercing" if it actually happened):

41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Oh, well, how convenient. And yet further evidence that Jesus' true condition (e.g., coma) could easily have been missed by either man in their certainty that he was dead and short time handling him from one place to the cave.

In regard to the supposed "piercing," note how desperate the author is to try and convince the reader:

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

Really! I swear. Honest. It's the truth and he knows it and anyone who knows they are telling the truth obviously must be telling the truth and he came up to me of his own volition and said, "Man, is this ever the truth, I tell you! That happened."

So, according to the author of John, evidently some guy watching the soldiers do this in turn gave "testimony" to what he witnessed and he did so specifically so that the readers of John's gospel would believe him.

But why wouldn't anyone believe him? And why in the world is it referred to as "testimony"? He's just telling the author of John, supposedly, that he saw some soldiers doing a routine thing.

Which means that there clearly must have been--such as in Paul's time--members of the cult that did not believe Jesus was actually dead when Joseph took him down off the cross. Why else add in an unnecessary assurance and sequence of events that doesn't exist in any of the earlier versions and over emphasize the fact that it's "testimony" and the truth and further that the man knows he tells the truth (is that even a thing; who doesn't know they are telling the truth after all) and, most hyperbolically "testifies so that you also may believe"?

Believe that a soldier took his spear to stab a crucified man to see if he was dead? What's not to believe about that?

But it comes clear when you realize, he's NOT testifying that Jesus was dead and that the soldier made sure of it. He's testifying that a soldier "pierced" Jesus' side with a spear instead of breaking his bones. Why does either matter? Because the author of John is bizarrely trying to tie it to prophecy. He states it openly:

The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

Now, the problem with that, of course, as with ALL such attempts to fit Jesus into Jewish prophecy is that, neither of those references could possibly refer to Jesus. The first one is just irrelevant. The alleged soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones because they thought he was already dead.

And--btw--the fact that Jesus appeared dead to the soldiers by looking at him, but they supposedly took the extra step to confirm it proves my earlier points that even trained soldiers well versed in seeing dead men could not simply tell by looking up at him whether or not he was actually dead.

But back to the prophecy that wasn't. "Not one of his bones will be broken" is actually a reference to three different "Old" testament books: Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20, and Exodus 12:46.

Let's do last first:

Exodus 12:46 “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.

That's a reference to the passover dinner:

43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal:

“No foreigner may eat it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident or a hired worker may not eat it.

46 “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it.

48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

50 All the Israelites did just what the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. 51 And on that very day the Lord brought the Israelites out of Egypt by their divisions.

Yes, we all know Jesus was compared to a sacrificial lamb, but this is a reference to how they should eat the lamb. And yes, we all know the weird cannibalism in the eucharist, but there is no possible way that this passage is a prophecy about Jesus, unless Jesus is being cooked on the cross for everyone to actually eat him, not bizarrely metaphorically eat him in some ritualized version of a passover dinner.

Jesus didn't say, "Take this bread and eat of it, for it is my body, but be sure not to break my bones when you do so..."

Psalm 34:20 is:

he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.

In context? Psalm 34 is:

Of David. When he pretended to be insane before Abimelek, who drove him away, and he left.

Ok. Weird. So what is David saying in his feigned insanity?

I sought the Lord, and he answered me; he delivered me from all my fears....Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.

And so he does:

The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are attentive to their cry;
16 but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil,
to blot out their name from the earth.

17 The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them;
he delivers them from all their troubles.
18 The Lord is close to the brokenhearted
and saves those who are crushed in spirit.

19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the Lord delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.
22 The Lord will rescue his servants;
no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.

Again, NOT a prophecy. It is merely David explaining that God will protect any person who is righteous, but it's not a prophecy about a divine messiah--and supposed "son" of Jehovah--incarnating into flesh and then being inexplicably killed.

So far, we have a reference to how Jews are supposed to eat their dinner and that Jehovah will protect the righteous' bones. Evidently not the rest of the body in Jesus' case, just his bones. And that from someone pretending to be insane, no less.

Now, Numbers 9:12. Which is just another reference to how to eat:

12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations.

In context:

6 But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day 7 and said to Moses, “We have become unclean because of a dead body, but why should we be kept from presenting the Lord’s offering with the other Israelites at the appointed time?”

8 Moses answered them, “Wait until I find out what the Lord commands concerning you.”

9 Then the Lord said to Moses, 10 “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they are still to celebrate the Lord’s Passover, 11 but they are to do it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13 But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord’s offering at the appointed time.

It's really about being unclean due to a dead body and how long to wait before eating the ritual meal.

So, again, NOT a prophecy about the future existence of Jehovah incarnated in his "son" on earth and then that "God-son" somehow being killed by Romans (but not having his legs broken because they are taking care to prepare and eat him properly).

Now, on to "They will look on the one they have pierced." This is from Zechariah 12, which begins with this blatant qualification:

A prophecy: The word of the Lord concerning Israel.

The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: 2 “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.

Got that? So, it's Jehovah speaking. Clear? And He is talking about a day of reckoning. There are several "On that days" in there, but I'll skip to the particular quote from John in context:

6 “On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume all the surrounding peoples right and left, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.

7 “The Lord will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them. 9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.

10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives.

So, again, on the day of Jesus' death, when did the "clans of Judah" become a "firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch" that "consume all the surrounding peoples right and left" leaving Jerusalem intact? Where is the weeping of every clan (and their wives, no less)?

Let's add in another "on that day":

On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness,” declares the Lord. “I will keep a watchful eye over Judah, but I will blind all the horses of the nations. 5 Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘The people of Jerusalem are strong, because the Lord Almighty is their God.’

So, what happened to all the blind horses and the presumably thousands of now insane riders? I certainly hope Joseph didn't bring a horse to transport Jesus' body.

ALL of that added in to explain away what evidenty must have been a primary question among the gentiles circa 100 CE. Why didn't the soldiers break Jesus legs on the cross in order to make sure that he was dead?

And the "answer" is to try and falsely equate being stabbed with a spear with a "piercing" (because that's the word that was used in one of the books of the Torah) and because when you eat lamb on passover you need to be careful not to break any of the animal's bones.

You know, like when Roman soldiers cook and eat Jesus' body? Samey samey. So that's why he's God.

Btw, think any of the Roman soldiers were circumcised? Because, if not, there could be no sacrifice of the pesach lamb (or goat, which Jesus is never compared to for some unknown reason).

 

[remez]

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?

In my opinion this isn't so much a conclusion as an observation. For years I fruitlessly sought such evidence. I'll be glad to rescind this observation if you can provide evidence of a god who can produce miracles that violate the laws of nature, such evidence being able to withstand critical scrutiny. And if you could have produced such evidence when the challenge was still open the James Randi Educational Foundation would have made you a meeeeelion dollars richer for your efforts.

parsed......

In my opinion this isn't so much a conclusion as an observation.

Thus it is your subjective opinion. However, by context, it was originally presented as fact. Hence the attention it rendered.

For years I fruitlessly sought such evidence.

Ditto. BUT, I found such evidence that makes it very reasonable to believe God exists and created the universe.


Therefore IF it is reasonable that God exists and his greatest miracle was the creation of the universe THEN is is perfectly reasonable to believe that miracles are possible. So really the question of miracles depends on the reasonable existence of God.
also.....
We looked at the same evidence and reached different conclusions. I'm guessing here from between the lines of your text, that you would require a scientific explanation in order to grant that some evidence is reasonable or not. I don't need such a limited epistemology. Hence my earlier comment regarding epistemology.
back again to ...............

IF it is reasonable that God exists and his greatest miracle was the creation of the universe THEN is is perfectly reasonable to believe that miracles are possible. Hence we each have different assertions about what a miracle is.
therefore.....

You assert that miracles are simply a violation of nature. Because your epistemology philosophically denies that the supernatural exists.
But..........
I reasonably believe that the supernatural exists because nature, by my interpretation (epistemology) of the evidence, began to exist. Thus reasonably it's cause must be from beyond nature....which is what I mean by supernatural. Thus based upon the reasonableness that the universe began to exist I believe that the supernatural exists as its cause. Hold on.....before you assert the the supernatural equates to fictional fantasy, remember that you have no scientific grounds to support that equation. And if you resort to metaphysical grounds then I metaphysically can refute that equation of fantasy as well.


Therefore I assert that miracles are events which can't be explained by nature, because they are supernatural by definition. You can't have a purely naturalist explanation of a supernatural event. Thus it is a categorical fallacy to even assert that there must exist a purely natural explanation for a supernatural event.
and
that pseudo million will never be doled out. It's completely bogus. Because, neither you nor JR, will ever accept that any event was supernatural for philosophical reasons and it can't be proven naturally because its supernatural. It is simply not in your nature, because you are limited to only nature. Thus you are begging the question and the contest.


Finally back to my case......and how all of that fits in...........
I presented four historical facts and abductively reason that the best explanation is not natural but supernatural.


And I feel content in my ability to "naturally" defeat any natural explanation put forth. Because I, with the same certainty that you profess, that you have never seen any evidence for a miracle. I profess that I have not seen a natural explanation of those four facts that measures up to the supernatural explanation. Which I can accept and you can not because of our different epistemologies. Thus the debate will continue. And we will disagree. I just wanted to challenge the certainty of your claim that theology has no evidence. It only has no evidence given your epistemology, which is limited.

I'll be glad to rescind this observation if you can provide evidence of a god who can produce miracles that violate the laws of nature, such evidence being able to withstand critical scrutiny.

I mean this politely...............
Your transformation from skeptic to theist has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with the philosophy you use to judge the evidence.


As I have already addressed.....asking for natural evidence of that you won't consider exists(supernatural) ...... is a begging the question fallacy. Because any evidence provided at some point would overtly require an understanding that the supernatural is reasonable. And that is philosophically eliminated from your consideration to begin with. See?


Take for example I would assert that an expanding universe (natural evidence) is strong evidence that supports (not proves) a premise in a theological argument that the supernatural (God) exists. You would "naturally" reject that before I even began. And profess with confidence that theists have no evidence. We have no evidence only because you will accept no supernatural explanation of the evidence to begin with.


So this.................

And if you could have produced such evidence when the challenge was still open the James Randi Educational Foundation would have made you a meeeeelion dollars richer for your efforts.

.............is just as disingenuous, because of the very same "begging the question" set up.

 

[atrib]

You claim that I am rejecting history because I don't find the story of a 2,000 year old flying zombie credible. After you and I have agreed that stories about flying zombies should be treated with skepticism. Where?

I'm skeptical of your interpretive understanding here : zombies, re-animated "walking dead" as opposed to: ressurected, being brought back-to-life, a new body. Can be a little misleading for the discussion imo.

How do you know that a new body was provided, and that the old body wasn't reanimated? Where did this new body come from? Was it made in some kind of a celestial factory, or did a human have to give birth to a soulless baby that grew into a soulless full size body that was stored somewhere, and later used as a container for Jesus's soul? Where did Jesus's soul go after it left the old body and before it could be inserted into the new body? What is a soul and how does it move around between bodies? Your statements lead to even more questions that need to be answered.

And more importantly, do you agree that stories involving reanimated, flying corpses should be treated with skepticism, as remez did?

 

[remez]

This idea that all history must be rejected because it is unreliable, if we are to reject the claims that Jesus was resurrected, is batshit crazy.

I am NOT asserting that at all. I absolutely agree with you.
What you are objecting to is what I'm objecting to.

I'm defending my case against the reasoning atrib presented against it.

The only reasoning he has provided was.......... since people lie the resurrection is not true. I'm sure you can see that reasoning is in error and needs clarification, because he does believe history can be true (as do I), but his method as stated eliminates all of history. I'm simply asking him to reconcile the bad reasoning.
Specifically...............
I'm asking for atrib to give me his criterion (his procedure/method) for how he determines what history is true, because it can't be "people lie" therefore history is unknowable.

In order for me to defend my argument he needs to provided his reasoning for the rejection.

Like you developed so well below.

So I agree with your well presented procedure to judge history all the way down your post to where your reasoning jumped the tracks here...................

Similarly, a claim that some Judean revolutionaries were crucified by the Romans is not particularly controversial. Such a claim is completely compatible with everything else in the history of Rome and Judea; And with archaeological evidence.

Good but so much more..... that would also extend to the Roman Laws. Roman Crucifixion practices and law. The Roman soldiers handbook. The sociopolitical structure would very much affect the context of the events. The historical context of that time. The religious context of that time. The biology of death. The inexplicable explosion of Christianity amidst such persecution. The reported explanations of the empty tomb (context obviously empty regarding Jesus). Death and Burial practices, and of course the MATH etc.

A claim that one of these people was taken down after a few days and his body taken away by his friends is banal. It might or might not have occurred, but if there's a document that says it did, even a fairly unreliable document, it's something that we can provisionally accept might have occurred.

Oh but you were doing so well. This more reflects your subjective disinterest. You completely understate the historical context of the event. It's like saying stock car racing is nothing more than left turns. If you have no interest then you have no reason to challenge my argument. But if you are going to challenge my argument, then the historical details can not be reasonably dismissed because of disinterest.

Your comment there is so vague and devoid of commitment there really isn't anything to address. I would agree with you that the story that the disciples stole the body does not sound credible. If that was even what you were trying to reason. " If there is some document".....really....... thus we would need to address if the NT is reliable. The NT and other documents can reasonably be explored using the procedure you wisely presented earlier.

A claim that someone rose from the dead, revealing himself to be a God; And changed all of humanity forever - Now THAT'S in the same class as a claim that the Omaha Beach landings were a feint, and the US 1st Infanty Division actually landed at Calais, after which they funded the rest of the war by transmuting lead into gold.

Very clever exaggeration. But subjective none the less.
Why would now you abandon your own approach and resort to mockery as reason.

Why is the resurrection in the same class?

See, you missed providing any reason for your subjective choice to place the resurrection there in the spectrum. You set up your spectrum so well, from alchemy to Omaha. You provided a credible procedure to judge history and then YOU arbitrarily placed the resurrection there according to your desire, evidenced by the mocking pedagogy.

You did nothing there other than mock the argument on the table from a distance of insignificance. Mockery is not reasoning. Lack of details positions your reasoning beyond significance. Like atrib with his people lie therefore history he does not like...... is false.

It appears (because I have to guess) that your objection to the NT is that it contains miracles and therefore in your opinion the NT is unreliable. I get that.
but
You would need to address the reasonable possibility of miracles. Simple rejection by mockery amounts to nothing more than it's your arbitrary desire.

As I stated earlier miracles are possible if it is reasonable that God exists.
I don't think you would object to that. That was what you called clever.
But.......
It isn't just a cute saying..... it is pure reasoning. That of course is subject to objection and defense. However I don't think that is the real issue.

The real issue would be IF it is reasonable that God exists (we've been there b4) since if he does then it is reasonable that miracles are possible. Which would completely undermine your reasoning that the NT is unreliable. Which again chains to my argument for the resurrection. That is why I usually like to enter threads rationally discussing Gods existence. The rest falls in line after that.

So that is the bigger picture. Back to our issue on the table. Why specifically (using your procedure) is the miraculous resurrection not the best explanation of those historical facts? Again my guess is that you discount the NT as reliable solely based on the fact that miracles are present.
But....
Look at the four facts I provided again, nothing in those for facts is a miracle. Each of those four facts is collaborated by extra-biblical evidence as well. The best explanation is miraculous, at least that's the debate here at this moment. Your counter set the stage very well but arbitrarily positioned my explanation into your spectrum with no reasoning just mockery. You can do better.

 

[Learner]

No, I didn't actually. I pointed out that it was a later embellishment. There is no spear or piercing of his side in the synoptics, just in John. Regardless, that supposedly occurred right at the end, so even if it were true, that does not necessarily mean it was a fatal blow, particularly when you factor in (again) that Joseph cleaned and wrapped Jesus' body in medicinal linens (bandages, essentially). They called them burial linens in John, but potato/potato:

With Pilate’s permission, [Joseph] came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

Holy crap that's a LOT of myrrh and aloe, both of which have significant antibacterial healing properties, particularly in regard to the kinds of wounds Jesus supposedly had inflicted upon him (i.e., multiple lacerations from the thorns in his skull and from being beaten and whipped; the nail holes supposedly in his feet and/or wrists or hands; etc., and yes, even his side "piercing" if it actually happened):

I have to say, that is not a bad viewpoint "interpretation", especially if we ARE to take the piercing "out" of the equation, giving the conveniency, suitable for the notion that a person could possibly survive the crucifixion, as proposed in previous posts.

"a LOT of myrrh and aloe" ... "This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs." Yes it seems so. Not much mention of others, survivng such physical trauma with the similar burial traditions, outside the bible in the ancient world ,. Maybe it just doesn't happen.

(Just a bit at a time for me at moment)

 

[remez]

Conversion, or conversation? A Freudian slip, perhaps?

...
A claim that someone rose from the dead, revealing himself to be a God; And changed all of humanity forever - Now THAT'S in the same class as a claim that the Omaha Beach landings were a feint, and the US 1st Infanty Division actually landed at Calais, after which they funded the rest of the war by transmuting lead into gold.

It's going to need an ENORMOUS amount of really hard evidence, if anyone reasonable is going to seriously entertain it as a possibility. But all we have is a few documents that are questionable in other ways. No archeological evidence. No independent documentation - despite the existence of documents from independent observers in that time and place. That's not even close to enough. No serious historian would accept such flimsy support for such a major claim. It's more likely to simply be a made up story. Such tales are commonplace.
...

Bilby that was a very good and thorough answer to remez's question. The main point for me is the part I've quoted here. It's the dearth of corraborating evidence about this resurrection idea that serves as the basis for the belief in everything from the after-life to eternal damnation to that gnawing guilt of original sin and Jesus suffering on the cross. All of the associated baggage that demands more substantial evidence.

Sorry in my quick proof read I missed the auto-correction and read it as I intended it conversation. But it was a cool slip.
and .......
I agree with you that bilby set up the spectrum so well....
but.....
His mockery was the only evidence he presented to place the resurrection at the alchemy end of the scale.

Thus in my last post to him I asked for the specifics as to why he placed it there. Since you agree with him I ask you the same.

 

[Treedbear]

...

...
A claim that someone rose from the dead, revealing himself to be a God; And changed all of humanity forever - Now THAT'S in the same class as a claim that the Omaha Beach landings were a feint, and the US 1st Infanty Division actually landed at Calais, after which they funded the rest of the war by transmuting lead into gold.

It's going to need an ENORMOUS amount of really hard evidence, if anyone reasonable is going to seriously entertain it as a possibility. But all we have is a few documents that are questionable in other ways. No archeological evidence. No independent documentation - despite the existence of documents from independent observers in that time and place. That's not even close to enough. No serious historian would accept such flimsy support for such a major claim. It's more likely to simply be a made up story. Such tales are commonplace.
...

Bilby that was a very good and thorough answer to remez's question. The main point for me is the part I've quoted here. It's the dearth of corraborating evidence about this resurrection idea that serves as the basis for the belief in everything from the after-life to eternal damnation to that gnawing guilt of original sin and Jesus suffering on the cross. All of the associated baggage that demands more substantial evidence.

...
I agree with you that bilby set up the spectrum so well....
but.....
His mockery was the only evidence he presented to place the resurrection at the alchemy end of the scale.

Thus in my last post to him I asked for the specifics as to why he placed it there. Since you agree with him I ask you the same.

But I didn't take bilby's analogy as mockery. Well, it is our bilby so yeah there's always that. He's an Aussie and makes his point stridently. But from a non-believer's point of view the stories in the Bible are at least as absurd. I think I explained why in my above response. To rephrase: The consequences to one's own life by way of one's world view and one's system of beliefs that come from accepting the resurrection of Jesus and all it entails demands far more corroborating evidence than what was written so long ago in the NT. That's the basis for bilby's argument as well as the point atrib was trying to make. Your counter to that seems to be the following:

...
The real issue would be IF it is reasonable that God exists (we've been there b4) since if he does then it is reasonable that miracles are possible. Which would completely undermine your reasoning that the NT is unreliable. Which again chains to my argument for the resurrection. That is why I usually like to enter threads rationally discussing Gods existence. The rest falls in line after that.

So that is the bigger picture. Back to our issue on the table. Why specifically (using your procedure) is the miraculous resurrection not the best explanation of those historical facts? Again my guess is that you discount the NT as reliable solely based on the fact that miracles are present. ...

The first point has to be that we don't agree with your premise that God must exist. That's a major difference in how we see the NT, but it's not the main reason that we doubt the story. The entire story is in doubt up to the resurrection for the reasons stated, the possibility of miracles notwithstanding. The point taken from bilby's argument should be that the need for doubt increases in proportion to the consequences of what is implied by the presented evidence. I'm sure you'd agree that it implies a major commitment is required in one's world view. In fact probably much more so than the mere metaphysical logic behind the argument for a creator God. And even if we postulate that a creator God exists and the things it does can only appear as miraculous how does that translate into the contrivance presented in the Bible? A God would be necessary but not sufficient to draw any such conclusion. Certainly not the best conclusion.

You suggested that atrib discounted the reliability of the NT based soley on his disbelief in miracles. It really seems to me you're basing your reliance on the NT soley on the stories of miracles. The resurrection in and of itself wouldn't be sufficient. The loaves and fishes, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, walking on water, smiting the fig tree, water to wine, etc, etc, are made to seem conventional but essential in supporting the idea that God is a necessary being. In practical terms you need to believe in the Bible first (or going through Jesus) in order to be convinced there is a God. Without that God becomes what atheists call the God of the gaps. It's a useless concept that explains nothing. But we can continue to ask.

 

[Treedbear]

duplicate

 

[Treedbear]

duplicate

 

[Atheos]

I'll be glad to rescind this observation if you can provide evidence of a god who can produce miracles that violate the laws of nature, such evidence being able to withstand critical scrutiny.

I mean this politely...............
Your transformation from skeptic to theist has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with the philosophy you use to judge the evidence.


As I have already addressed.....asking for natural evidence of that you won't consider exists(supernatural) ...... is a begging the question fallacy. Because any evidence provided at some point would overtly require an understanding that the supernatural is reasonable. And that is philosophically eliminated from your consideration to begin with. See?


Take for example I would assert that an expanding universe (natural evidence) is strong evidence that supports (not proves) a premise in a theological argument that the supernatural (God) exists. You would "naturally" reject that before I even began. And profess with confidence that theists have no evidence. We have no evidence only because you will accept no supernatural explanation of the evidence to begin with.


So this.................

And if you could have produced such evidence when the challenge was still open the James Randi Educational Foundation would have made you a meeeeelion dollars richer for your efforts.

.............is just as disingenuous, because of the very same "begging the question" set up.

First off, I'm fully aware that my personal journey towards enlightenment has nothing to do with where the actual truth is. Please cease with these implications that I think I've found it. I am fully aware I could be wrong, something I've tried to state several times in this thread alone, and even in the very post to which you were responding.

I get that it is possible that an expanding universe such as we observe is consistent with the existence of a universe-creating god who creates universes by expanding them from singularities. What I don't get is why the universe-creating-god theory has any more merit than a universe-creating-god consortium composed of gods who don't give flying fucks about how the microscopic inhabitants of said universes behave, but are more interested in letting their universes grow and ripen until they're ready to be tossed into a salad and served for dinner. And what I know for a fact is that the expanding universe with relatively young earth (much younger than most of the visible stars in the universe) is 100% inconsistent with the picture painted in the one creation myth with which I am most familiar, one that depicts our planet existing with liquid water and plant life before our sun existed.

Your most recent post seems to imply that you and I are on equal footing because what we believe simply relies on something you keep calling a philosophical epistemology. You're wrong about this. Here's why:

What I believe can be changed with simple evidence, and I'll be specific in a moment. What you believe can never be assailed. There is no fact, no piece of evidence, nothing that will ever be able to convince you that this miracle-producing god does not, in fact, exist. The parameters by which you cling to this premise preclude falsifiability. This is the basis of stagnation, not learning. The inability to question something is an unassailable prison. If it is the prison in which you wish to live, so be it.

Here's a specific example of something that would falsify my current belief:

Mark 11:23 - Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.

This is very simple and straight to the point. It wouldn't even have to be a mountain. It could be an overturned car pinning down a small boy whom paramedics were trying to rescue. If this passage from the bible is true every EMT van would be carrying at least one believing christian for such emergencies. The fact that this violation of the laws of gravitational attraction could only be performed by genuine believers in Yahweh, combined with the consistency with which such people of faith could demonstrate Yahweh's power would be sufficient to demonstrate the effect of Yahweh on the universe. It could be examined critically to ensure that there weren't any ropes or hidden cranes being used.

But we don't get moved mountains or moved cars, moved log piles, moved mudslides, moved avalanches, etc. All we ever get is rationalizations to water this verse down and apologize for it.

Yahweh behaves in exactly the same way Yahweh would behave if Yahweh didn't exist. The bible also says,

James 4

:13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

But rocket scientists don't have to say, "If Yahweh wills we shall use the gravitational slingshot effects of Jupiter to propel this probe deep into the solar system." Electrical engineers don't have to build extra tolerances into their circuitry to provide for the Yahweh effect. Even in medicine the effects of prayer are indistinguishable from the effects of no prayer, as has been examined critically on more than one occasion.

Yes, in spite of all this Yahweh could still exist. Of course Santa Claus could be hiding at the North Pole in his hidden workshop as well.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"a LOT of myrrh and aloe" ... "This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs." Yes it seems so. Not much mention of others, survivng such physical trauma with the similar burial traditions, outside the bible in the ancient world ,. Maybe it just doesn't happen.

Well, as I previously noted--and the whole notion of breaking their legs to begin with confirms--crucifixion typically lasted several days. That's why it was used as a particularly gruesome form of capital punishment; criminals would essentially just rot to death for all to see as a deterrent against similar actions.

Jesus, however, was only on the cross for a few hours (hence Pilate supposedly being surprised that Jesus had been reported dead already). According to "John" it was the Jewish elders who supposedly requested that soldiers be sent in earlier than normal to hasten the deaths of everyone being crucified, because of the passover festival.

Add to that mix that Jesus was evidently unusually treated with a "crown" of thorns and being brutally beaten and so forth in addition to then being nailed on the cross. So his trauma that eventually would lead (in a short amount of time) to any coma would have all been unique and more-or-less concurrent and accumulative by the time he finally got nailed up.

Consider someone in a car accident that gets a severe concussion and maybe some internal bleeding. They would still be able to walk around and appear more-or-less normal for a few hours only to then later collapse due to the progressive, accumulative effects of that kind of damage.

Plus, my guess is that there was a lot of bribery going on (hence the reason soldiers were posted at all), so the lucky ones would have families and friends who were albe to bribe the guards in order to take them down before too much suffering.

And you've got the fact that soldiers evidently did eventually break legs in order to hasten a death that lingered too long or also through bribery to end a loved one's suffering, etc.

And, since we're talking primarily about criminals being killed (and therefore no one worth writing about or telling stories about that would last for centuries), for all we know there had been many who were thought to have died, but only passed out or slipped into a coma or the like, only to revive later. Hence the very idea of a soldier taking a spear in the first place to stab those who appeared dead to make sure that they were, in fact, dead. That certainly can't be the first time a Roman soldier thought to do that.

Again there are MANY purely natural, fully human explanations behind any possible actual events that then got later turned into mythological stories that don't rely on the notion of lying.

Though, for all we know, that sequence of events did happen to someone crucified, just not Jesus, but when Jesus died and failed to resurrect, the remaining disciples simply took the story of the other person and turned it into the story of Jesus. I.e., they "co-opted" (to use a modern term) someone else's incredibly story they had heard or was known at the time and just applied it to Jesus, who, in real life, actually died and was buried.

 

[abaddon]

Of course Santa Claus could be hiding at the North Pole in his hidden workshop as well.

But that's reasonable, isn't it? If any being has ever been on the north pole, then what's unreasonable about the mythology about something extremely vaguely similar (as in, not much at all) that all takes place on the north pole?

If God making the universe is reasonable (in that lipstick on a pig of an argument, the KCA), why can't the schizotypal tales about a resurrection and sin and hell and salvation and immortal life be "reasonable"? If God made a universe, then anything's possible (but not other people's mythologies, just the Christian one).