Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[remez]

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.

It doesn’t matter how you took it. What matters is what was there and what wasn’t.

Notice when he presented his well thought out spectrum and provided reasons as to why he placed events where they belonged. But with the resurrection he first greatly understated its historical support and only mocked the resurrection into his spectrum. He doesn’t like it so he arbitrarily placed it down near alchemy.

But from a non-believer's point of view the stories in the Bible are at least as absurd.

So does that give you some special privilege of not having to support your position?

I get it all the time. I very rarely get the reasons that should go with that statement of absurdity. You don’t like it so it is all absurd.

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.

No that is not an argument.
That is only the basis of his preference. No argument was given. He simply mocked that which he didn’t like.

The entire story is in doubt up to the resurrection for the reasons stated,

Well then…..it should be easy for you quote the reasons stated. Good luck because all he gave was mockery.
Further…………..

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.

Again he gave no argument. He was addressing my contention with atrib’s reasoning regarding history. And he did a great job in developing that historical spectrum. But it was not an argument. He mocked the resurrection into his well-developed historical spectrum. With the other events he placed in the spectrum he provided reasons for their placement. Your take on his preferences have nothing to do with that fact. I’m well aware of his preference that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t agree with it because I found it philosophically unsound and arbitrary. But regardless his preference and my contentions with them have nothing to do with my request for his reasoning as to where he places the resurrection into his historical spectrum.

You seem to be suggesting that if you think some event has great consequences then you can toss it into the alchemy side of the spectrum because…… it would require an extraordinary amount of evidence……. that you have arbitrarily predetermined could not be met. A kind of get out of reason pass.

I'm sure you'd agree that it implies a major commitment is required in one's world view.

That has nothing to do with my request.
Now….
You (not bilby) may be trying to counter my original argument for the resurrection with …..You need more evidence to match to consequences. To that I say fine. I’m not asking you to believe me. I’m asking you if you can provide a natural explanation that better explanations those four facts than a miracle occurred. Even if you can’t it does not mean you have to determine the argument to be compelling. So just be honest.

You suggested that atrib discounted the reliability of the NT based soley on his disbelief in miracles.

No. Go back and read it carefully. I addressed the topic as IF that was what he was inferring, because it seemed that way. It is a very common objection. Probably the most common.

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.

Nope. I was not trying to prove the NT by using miracles. I was addressing the reasonableness of rejecting of the NT because it contained miracles.

In practical terms you need to believe in the Bible first (or going through Jesus) in order to be convinced there is a God.

Only in the same practical terms you have to understand the Bible first in order to be convinced he does not exist.

Think about it.

While you are at it look up Natural Theology.

 

[remez]

Good Stuff. Remember my big contention was with your philosophy that theism has no evidence.
Well it seems that I have made my case on that point………

I get that it is possible that an expanding universe such as we observe is consistent with the existence of a universe-creating god

Thus theists have good reason to believe God exists supported by the same evidences we’re all looking at. So YES YES YES theists have evidence for what they believe. I in “know” way assert that you have to agree with the evidence and reasoning however to deny it exists is overtly irrational.

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

It’s fine that you don’t get that. That’s your journey.
Just in case you’re curious…….
My quick take on that is……..seriously…..the evidence and reasoning does not support a consortium of gods. It supports a transcendent mono-theistic God. But that is off the topic here.

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.

On that one you and I are in agreement.

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.

We are not on equal footing.
and
You are wrong…..evidence can and has altered my worldview. Ex. From being a skeptic on grounds of young earth teaching to theist on cosmological and philosophical evidence and reasoning.

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.

Your assumption is wrong again. I have good evidence and reason for what I believe. I’m perfectly willing to alter my worldview according to the evidence and reasoning.

The parameters by which you cling to this premise preclude falsifiability.

This one is a hard one to address straight up.
Because I do reject the notion of falsifiability as a foundational epistemology. It is a self-refuting epistemology because you cannot falsify it.
But ….
I do grasp the point of your blind faith there….your assumption…...that my beliefs are blind faith.
Well……you are wrong….give me the evidence and reasoning.
If you can make a case that renders God’s existence less plausible than his existence I will alter by beliefs.

The inability to question something is an unassailable prison. If it is the prison in which you wish to live, so be it.

Really. You are mistaking my confidence in what I believe for a non-questioning blind faith. WHY???? Would you do that? You couldn’t be more wrong.

I’m insatiably curious and skeptical.
By way of an example let’s examine your first example…..in Mark about casting mountains in to the sea.

I really don’t know (skeptical) about what Jesus was actually teaching there. I’m not sure we have the whole context. Reasonably to me it seems that Jesus was using hyperbole to emphasize his point like a camel through the eye of a needle or the timber in your brother’s eye. Was the context just for them at that time? Because that would fit our biblical understanding of miracles in regards purpose and reason. Plus I don’t reason that my faith would overcome the sovereign will of God, but that verse seems to suggest that I could throw a mountain at you. The wider perspective teaching from the rest of the bible would suggest that you would also have to be in the will of God to throw that mountain. quick ex James 4:3.

What I’m really skeptical about there is your apparent interpretation that anyone for any reason, at any time, can perform a miracle against God’s will that could harm someone. That is not consistent with the rest of scripture.

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.

Again your assertion that a miracle is a violation of natural law again attests to your exclusion of the supernatural to begin with. I simply assert that a miracle cannot be explained naturally, because it is supernatural. So once again you are asking for a purely naturalistic explanation of a supernatural event which is a categorical fallacy.
Also………on those same grounds……
You seem to indicate that it take a miracle to convince you God exists. For me it is simply the other way around. Your way, with your restrictions would not work, because it would have to be explained naturally in order for you to believe it. According to Biblical history there were many there in the crowd that witnessed his ministry and still called for him to be crucified. The Pharisees even credited his miracles to the power of demons. Volition is so very blinding.

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.

Why should you get those things?
And…….
It’s fallacious to suggest that anyone pointing out a misinterpretation on your part is watering down the scripture. AKA poisoning the well.

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.

Again you are cherry picking out of context. What a stretch. Seriously that was amazing. Again you are suggesting that all scripture indicates we are not to plan for any endeavor? But how do you account for the complete balance of scripture that encourages the opposite to your assertion such as you should not to build your house in the sand?

Perhaps, James was asserting something far less extreme then your unreasonable interpretation. Like don’t take your life for granted.

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.

And here we go again. If God is possible than Santa is possible. Such a statement of blind faith. You don’t even question it? You would have to reject and ignore evidence, reason, history and even science to believe that reasoning is reasonable. God is beyond nature but not reason. Santa is a known natural tale and beyond reason. Be my guest.

 

[remez]

If God made a universe, then anything's possible (but not other people's mythologies, just the Christian one).

If God made the universe then why would the other religions claiming otherwise be reasonable?

 

[Brian63]

Does God have the ability to make Himself go "beyond" reason?

 

[atrib]

I get that sense. And it is good sense.

But all you have presented to defend your objection to my argument was the nonsensical….. Because “people lie” the resurrection is myth.
And you continue to pursue it………..

You are misrepresenting what I said. I am skeptical because the claim of a resurrected flying corpse is extraordinary. You have agreed that such skepticism is reasonable. By your own admission, my skepticism should not be considered controversial.

Because “people lie” the resurrection is a myth.

Someone made the story up is the simplest naturalistic explanation, which is why I favor it. But it is not the primary reason I don't believe the claim (see above). I have explained this to you already.

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?

Your argument that all of history has to be discarded because some people lie or embellish stories is absurd. It is also not the position I hold, that is a strawman you have constructed.

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

I am not in the business of assessing the credibility of historical claims. That is the job of historians. However, for stories that involve corpses getting reanimated and flying off into the sky, skepticism is the appropriate response. One does not have to be a historian to treat such stories with skepticism. Again, we have agreed on this point, and I do not understand your continued insistence on demanding an answer to a question that has been answered already. About 4 times now.

I am going to repeat this one more time:
My opinion regarding how the Jesus resurrection story got started in NOT important, and you are using this as a red herring to try to shift the burden. What is important is that all stories regarding flying reanimated corpses be treated with skepticism. You have stipulated to this fact. If you believe the Jesus resurrection story should be treated differently than other similarly extraordinary claims, it is your responsibility to explain why.

You correctly hint at it here………….

And historians have the ability to assess the evidence for various claims and determine whether a claim should be deemed credible, or unreliable, in whole or in part. And books that discuss the historical method and interpretations thereof are widely available to the public, and are taught to children all the way through high school in most western countries. It is possible to know that some people lie or embellish stories without having to throw out everything that everybody says.

Of course IT is possible. But I need you to tell me how you judge history. Because you are simply calling the resurrection a myth based only upon because “people lie”. Which if reasoned in the manner would logically eliminate all history and is self-refuting.

Asked and answered several times already. And misrepresenting my position, again!

Let me propose a hypothetical:
Timmy walks into math class and tells the teacher that he did complete his math homework, but that a flying zombie stole his homework when he was walking to school.

Given the nature of Timmy's claim,
Would it be reasonable for the teacher to assume that Timmy's excuse was not credible?
Does the teacher need to know the precise details of how and why Timmy made up this excuse to be skeptical of the excuse?
If the teacher knows that some students make up false excuses to get out of doing homework, would it then be reasonable for the teacher to assume that every student in the history of human existence is a liar?

If you can answer these questions honestly, you might grasp what I am saying.

I need you to give me your procedure so that I can address how it does or does not affect my argument. Because “people lie” arbitrarily applied does not bring any reasonable objection against my argument. And that is all you have offered.

My argument is that it is reasonable to be skeptical of extraordinary claims, and you have agreed. I cite the precedent of people making up stories of gods and messiahs as a potential explanation for the existence of the Jesus resurrection story. Are you really unable to understand what I am saying?

You, on the other hand, are yet to make a positive argument as to why the Jesus resurrection story should be considered credible. Other than to tell us that you find the story credible. There is no discussion to be had here.

 

[abaddon]

If God made a universe, then anything's possible (but not other people's mythologies, just the Christian one).

If God made the universe then why would the other religions claiming otherwise be reasonable?

Which God made the universe? What connects whatever "God" thingamajig to Christian mythology?

Even many Christians recognize the uncaused, changeless, timeless, immaterial, disembodied mind that is "the philosopher's God" is not their "living God of the Bible", Jehovah.

The way theologians try to make God seem reasonable is to strip the mythological clothes off and leave some abstract characteristics. If that "being" or "force" that they want to go on calling "God" then seems reasonable, then to make the miracles of Christian mythology seem reasonable too, it's not enough to say "well, if [the philosopher's abstract] God is reasonable then the tales in this book are reasonable..." You have to put the mythological clothes back on. God isn't just uncaused, changeless, eternal, et al. He's also jealous, he's got a lot of rules, he's got a son, the son served as a scapegoat for others' sins, etc.

Connect the dots, don't just assume "God" is Jehovah.

And if you're going to bring up a multiple choice thing about "which fits best: monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism?" that is still too abstract. JEHOVAH. The God you want to believe exists is the biblical Jehovah, right?

 

[bilby]

It doesn’t matter how you took it. What matters is what was there and what wasn’t.

Notice when he presented his well thought out spectrum and provided reasons as to why he placed events where they belonged. But with the resurrection he first greatly understated its historical support and only mocked the resurrection into his spectrum. He doesn’t like it so he arbitrarily placed it down near alchemy.

No, I placed it down near alchemy because, just like alchemy, it describes events that contradict physical law. People do not come back from the dead, in the same way that lead does not transmute into gold.

That placement is not arbitrary - it's the only reasonable placement in a world in which resurrection is not a commonplace.

So does that give you some special privilege of not having to support your position?

I get it all the time. I very rarely get the reasons that should go with that statement of absurdity. You don’t like it so it is all absurd.

It's got nothing to do with absurdity; It's a question if whether or not it's a plausible event. Plausibility is determined by the frequency with which an event is observed in the real world. Crucifixions were a common event in the Roman period. Resurrections were not.

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.

No that is not an argument.
That is only the basis of his preference. No argument was given. He simply mocked that which he didn’t like.

I never mocked anything. That's entirely an artefact of your butt-hurt at people having the temerity not to accept your highly implausible, but deeply treasured, premise.

The entire story is in doubt up to the resurrection for the reasons stated,

Well then…..it should be easy for you quote the reasons stated. Good luck because all he gave was mockery.
Further…………..

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.

Again he gave no argument.

That the need for doubt increases in proportion to the difference between expected consequences and observable consequences IS an argument, you numpty.

He was addressing my contention with atrib’s reasoning regarding history. And he did a great job in developing that historical spectrum. But it was not an argument. He mocked the resurrection into his well-developed historical spectrum. With the other events he placed in the spectrum he provided reasons for their placement. Your take on his preferences have nothing to do with that fact. I’m well aware of his preference that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t agree with it because I found it philosophically unsound and arbitrary. But regardless his preference and my contentions with them have nothing to do with my request for his reasoning as to where he places the resurrection into his historical spectrum.

You seem to be suggesting that if you think some event has great consequences then you can toss it into the alchemy side of the spectrum because…… it would require an extraordinary amount of evidence……. that you have arbitrarily predetermined could not be met that doesn't exist

FTFY

. A kind of get out of reason pass.

You appear to be attempting to use a 'get out of having any evidence for your claims' pass.

I'm sure you'd agree that it implies a major commitment is required in one's world view.

That has nothing to do with my request.
Now….
You (not bilby) may be trying to counter my original argument for the resurrection with …..You need more evidence to match to consequences. To that I say fine.

Good. Then we are done.

I’m not asking you to believe me.

Good. Then we are done.

I’m asking you if you can provide a natural explanation that better explanations those four facts

Woah!!! You just accepted the reasons why these CANNOT be simply claimed as 'facts'. They are not facts. You said you weren't asking us to believe you. Well, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. You need to show your 'facts' to be true, before I will start believing you. You can't just say that they are facts, and expect them to pass unchallenged.

than a miracle occurred. Even if you can’t it does not mean you have to determine the argument to be compelling. So just be honest.

Honestly, you can believe any crazy shit you like. But if you want to claim that shit as 'facts', without evidence, you should be prepared to be shot down in flames by people who use reason and evidence as their basis.

You suggested that atrib discounted the reliability of the NT based soley on his disbelief in miracles.

No. Go back and read it carefully. I addressed the topic as IF that was what he was inferring, because it seemed that way. It is a very common objection. Probably the most common.

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.

Nope. I was not trying to prove the NT by using miracles. I was addressing the reasonableness of rejecting of the NT because it contained miracles.

In practical terms you need to believe in the Bible first (or going through Jesus) in order to be convinced there is a God.

Only in the same practical terms you have to understand the Bible first in order to be convinced he does not exist.

Think about it.

While you are at it look up Natural Theology.

Not 'understand'; Believe.

If you blindly accept the premise that claims from the Bible are facts, you can reach your desired conclusions; But reaching false conclusions from false premises is trivial and unimpressive.

You need to demonstrate with evidence that what you claim is factual. You haven't done that; So nobody needs to accept your claims nor any conclusions you derive from them.

The Bible is very weak evidence indeed. It's not even close to being sufficient to support important and implausible claims - such as that someone came back from the dead. That's an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

And by the way, the possibility of alchemy was supported by Biblical texts. The Biblical acceptence that alchemy was possible was a major factor in its medieval popularity (despite the fact that it was considered a sin).

 

[remez]

You are misrepresenting what I said. I am skeptical because the claim of a resurrected flying corpse is extraordinary. You have agreed that such skepticism is reasonable. By your own admission, my skepticism should not be considered controversial.

Not a bit. You lost track….Post 258……………..

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 this is not a naked assertion. This is an argument…..

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.

Now THIS is the naked assertion, your made up story, that you keep reciting……………

I am skeptical because the claim of a resurrected flying corpse is extraordinary.

So all you are rejecting with your people make things up is YOUR own……made up story….your own naked assertion…..that corpses can reanimate and fly away.
But……….
I gave you and argument with 4 historical facts to rip on and an explanation to easily challenge. You resorted to attacking your own made up story with nothing more than people make things up.
So ……..
Why wouldn’t I agree with you on that?

Sorry I really thought you understood my agreement.

I am not in the business of assessing the credibility of historical claims. That is the job of historians. However, for stories that involve corpses getting reanimated and flying off into the sky, skepticism is the appropriate response.

Then you are not in the business to address my argument. But I will one last time agree with you that it is right to be skeptical of your make up story.

We Good?

 

[remez]

JEHOVAH. The God you want to believe exists is the biblical Jehovah, right?

Without contest.

Which God made the universe?

Jehovah.

Even many Christians recognize the uncaused, changeless, timeless, immaterial, disembodied mind that is "the philosopher's God" is not their "living God of the Bible", Jehovah.

I’m not willing to concede that without context.
But…
How would that change anything anyway? If true all you have are some Christians that don’t understand how to present the plausibility of God’s existence to a skeptical audience. It does not infer we worship a different God.

And if you're going to bring up a multiple choice thing about "which fits best: monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism?" that is still too abstract.

Why is it abstract? Those are the choices. It is designed to be logically exhaustive.
Remember which best fits the evidence for a past finite universe.
Meaning which of those asserts an eternal creator that transcends the universe.

Again why is that abstract?

 

[atrib]

Notice when he presented his well thought out spectrum and provided reasons as to why he placed events where they belonged. But with the resurrection he first greatly understated its historical support and only mocked the resurrection into his spectrum. He doesn’t like it so he arbitrarily placed it down near alchemy.

Sounding like a broken record here, but why should the Jesus resurrection story be considered differently from alchemy? Still waiting for this alleged historical support to be provided. Ignoring these questions are not going to make them go away.

You also need to realize that people who are skeptical of god claims don't usually regard the Jesus stories with the sort of reverence Christians do. Don't get your panties in a wad just because someone calls resurrected Jesus a flying zombie, or compares the credibility of the claim to that of alchemy. And don't use it to try and draw our attention away from the real argument. That doesn't work.

You seem to be suggesting that if you think some event has great consequences then you can toss it into the alchemy side of the spectrum because…… it would require an extraordinary amount of evidence……. that you have arbitrarily predetermined could not be met. A kind of get out of reason pass.

So provide the evidence and shut us all up. But you are not going to do that, are you?

You (not bilby) may be trying to counter my original argument for the resurrection with …..You need more evidence to match to consequences.

You have not yet made an argument for your case, other than to state that you find the stories plausible.

To that I say fine. I’m not asking you to believe me. I’m asking you if you can provide a natural explanation that better explanations those four facts than a miracle occurred. Even if you can’t it does not mean you have to determine the argument to be compelling. So just be honest.

A naturalistic explanation has been provided multiple times. You don't like the explanation, but that is not my problem. Repeating the same absurd nonsense over and over is not going to get you a different answer.

You suggested that atrib discounted the reliability of the NT based soley on his disbelief in miracles.

No. Go back and read it carefully. I addressed the topic as IF that was what he was inferring, because it seemed that way. It is a very common objection. Probably the most common.

atrib has clarified his position multiple times. And you have agreed that his position of skepticism is reasonable.

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.

When are you going to provide the tailored suit to dress up the naked assertion? Never!

Nope. I was not trying to prove the NT by using miracles. I was addressing the reasonableness of rejecting of the NT because it contained miracles.

Christianity doesn't work without the story of the flying undead Christ. If Jesus was described as an accountant who drove a Toyota Prius and fucked his wife 3.4 times a month on average, there would be no Christianity.

 

[atrib]

Not a bit. You lost track….Post 258……………..

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.

So this is not a naked assertion. This is an argument…..

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.

Now THIS is the naked assertion, your made up story, that you keep reciting……………

I am skeptical because the claim of a resurrected flying corpse is extraordinary.

So all you are rejecting with your people make things up is YOUR own……made up story….your own naked assertion…..that corpses can reanimate and fly away.
But……….
I gave you and argument with 4 historical facts to rip on and an explanation to easily challenge. You resorted to attacking your own made up story with nothing more than people make things up.

You haven't given me any historical facts. You have simply presupposed that the stories should be considered credible. And demanded that I explain what the motivations of the people involved in the story are. Stories, and the characters in them, say and do whatever the author wants them to say and do, which is the point you are missing.

 

[abaddon]

And if you're going to bring up a multiple choice thing about "which fits best: monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism?" that is still too abstract.

Why is it abstract? Those are the choices. It is designed to be logically exhaustive.

Deism. It's not there in the "logically exhaustive" list. But, consider: A highly powerful entity that some would call "God" made the universe then stepped out and didn't do any more miracles. Cuz, what more miracles are there? The ones being discussed are observed only in tales with a dreamlike nonsensical quality to them, and not observed elsewhere.

I just wanted to more directly address the "if God exists then miracles are reasonable" proposition. People keep saying "God" as if which God is just obvious. In a christocentric culture, Jehovah will seem obvious. So, aside from how the miracles themselves need better evidence, the God ... even when granted only for the sake of argument that a deity exists... needs greater specificity than just "exists" and "makes universes".

You're relying on assumptions based on cultural tradition maybe more than you know.

I rely on no cultural tradition. So when someone says the God who created the universe makes miracles possible, I don't know why I should assume Jehovah. How does a particular culture's mythology attach to an abstruse argument about how the universe needs a supernatural cause? Is it because the supernatural cause comes from that mythology and not from evidence or reason? Why should I think "oh, ok, there's a miracle-working deity around so it's THESE miracles (and not THOSE miracles) that he allegedly participated in"?

Again why is that abstract?

Jehovah's less abstract than monotheism. Jesus is the son of the father Jehovah -- that is less abstract still. Jesus died because scapegoatism does something to 'sin"... that's less abstract still. This is what I call "putting the clothes back onto the mythology" (after they got stripped off in order to help things seem more "reasonable").

Let's not avoid details. Let's look at how sensible mythology is. Want to make sense of that blood sacrifice stuff? "God exists" doesn't help much, it doesn't make just any crazy thing possible. What sense does a blood sacrifice of a human, or man-god, make? I'm not looking at this with moral outrage but just seeking "the logic" in it.

I asked that a couple months back, and somebody answered it had to do with mending relationships. The contention was, being sorry means you have to sacrifice something. You seemed to agree with this inaccurate psychologism. Blood sacrifice is scapegoating; it's substituting something "clean" for something "dirty" so there's a kind of transference. You can correct the details if you like ... And that'll ilikely be nothing but a retelling of the myth. I think it won't be easy making the scapegoating logical or reasonable. Because it's innately an irrational impulse of the dream-logic bit of the human imagination (the sort of 'logic' that myths are made of). You can assert "that's just how God does stuff", but that's assertion. Can you make it make rational sense without merely retelling the myth that this is how God does things?

 

[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?

Learner, just a polite reminder that there is a question pending related to one of your posts. You made certain claims regarding the resurrection story, and I am trying to figure out what you were trying to say.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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?

Learner, just a polite reminder that there is a question pending related to one of your posts. You made certain claims regarding the resurrection story, and I am trying to figure out what you were trying to say.

Um, Aquinas said it HAD to be the same body, or it wasn't a resurrection. It had to be the same body reconnecting to the same soul, or it would be a form of afterlife.

Plus, he SHOWED people the wounds from the crucifixion. Why would anyone make a new body with another body's wounds? Lord knows, when I get a chance to buy a clone so I can live forever, I'm not taking my gall bladder scar along, or my partial finger amputation, or anything that shows I needed stitches. Not sure about the circumcision. I'm kinda used to that profile. But spear holes? Spike holes? No way I'd pay for those to be applied to the new chassis.

 

[atrib]

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?

Learner, just a polite reminder that there is a question pending related to one of your posts. You made certain claims regarding the resurrection story, and I am trying to figure out what you were trying to say.

Um, Aquinas said it HAD to be the same body, or it wasn't a resurrection. It had to be the same body reconnecting to the same soul, or it would be a form of afterlife.

Plus, he SHOWED people the wounds from the crucifixion. Why would anyone make a new body with another body's wounds? Lord knows, when I get a chance to buy a clone so I can live forever, I'm not taking my gall bladder scar along, or my partial finger amputation, or anything that shows I needed stitches. Not sure about the circumcision. I'm kinda used to that profile. But spear holes? Spike holes? No way I'd pay for those to be applied to the new chassis.

I agree. I wouldn't pay for a new body if it came with multiple pre-existing defects. Or add them on to a new body.

Learner appeared to be saying that the body Jesus was resurrected into was different from the body that he had previously inhabited. I had some technical questions about that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And Paul argued (an incoherent lot) about how their are two bodies; one made of flesh and blood and another merely "spiritual" and that they actually look different, which might account for "Doubting Thomas," except that none of the disciples said, "Well, you know, he doesn't look like Jesus anymore" in which case it might make sense for Thomas to say he wouldn't believe it unless and until he could stick his fingers in the wounds, but then there's the problem of a spiritual "body" having wounds.

And then there are other bits and pieces of Jesus appearing as himself and as others (like a "gardener") and being able to pop in and out of existence and rooms and the like. But, even if such a "spiritual" body could imitate wounds, it would essentially be the Jesus ghost fooling Thomas into thinking he was sticking his fingers in wounds. Iow, it would be the exact opposite of why Thomas wanted to stick his fingers in the wounds in the first place; to be sure it actually was the real Jesus. So what was Thomas even thinking if in fact the whole time his buddies were telling him that Jesus was now a shapeshifting ghost?

And, you know, it's Paul saying this nonsense--desperately no less in order to make the gentiles believe in something they evidently did not believe in.

So, yeah, the "emptiness" of the cave actually makes no sense at all from a resurrection perspective. Either the body should still be there and a new "spiritual" one--a ghost, iow--should be floating all around (you know, like the "angels" that evidently everyone could see?) OR Jesus should have bodily awakened (wounds included) and been sitting in the tomb waiting for someone to open it or the like.

Either Zombie-Jesus or Scooby-Doo-Jesus, but we have neither. We just have (initially) an already open cave with a tween in a robe just sitting inside.

 

[atrib]

Let's not avoid details. Let's look at how sensible mythology is. Want to make sense of that blood sacrifice stuff? "God exists" doesn't help much, it doesn't make just any crazy thing possible. What sense does a blood sacrifice of a human, or man-god, make? I'm not looking at this with moral outrage but just seeking "the logic" in it.

I asked that a couple months back, and somebody answered it had to do with mending relationships. The contention was, being sorry means you have to sacrifice something. You seemed to agree with this inaccurate psychologism. Blood sacrifice is scapegoating; it's substituting something "clean" for something "dirty" so there's a kind of transference. You can correct the details if you like ... And that'll ilikely be nothing but a retelling of the myth. I think it won't be easy making the scapegoating logical or reasonable. Because it's innately an irrational impulse of the dream-logic bit of the human imagination (the sort of 'logic' that myths are made of). You can assert "that's just how God does stuff", but that's assertion. Can you make it make rational sense without merely retelling the myth that this is how God does things?

Christianity rests on the foundation that a human sacrifice was needed to allow God to forgive humans for their transgressions and progress to an afterlife. To understand why this claim exists, context is important. Stories of sacrifices intended to appease gods are commonplace in the ancient world. The ancient Egyptians, Indians, American Indians, and people living in the middle east all had rituals involving sacrifices of living things, including human beings. So the Bible is not extraordinary in this regard, it mimics the then current beliefs and practices.

Of course, in the context of social norms today, the idea of sacrificing an innocent human to atone for the acts of others is barbaric and grossly unethical. But old beliefs die hard, and Christians still believe this nonsense, and many accept this horrific story without thinking deeply about it. And most Christians are not willing to engage in an open debate about the ethical and moral connotations of this story, and what it says about their their faith and about themselves as people.

 

[abaddon]

Christianity rests on the foundation that a human sacrifice was needed to allow God to forgive humans for their transgressions and progress to an afterlife. To understand why this claim exists, context is important. Stories of sacrifices intended to appease gods are commonplace in the ancient world. The ancient Egyptians, Indians, American Indians, and people living in the middle east all had rituals involving sacrifices of living things, including human beings. So the Bible is not extraordinary in this regard, it mimics the then current beliefs and practices.

Of course, in the context of social norms today, the idea of sacrificing an innocent human to atone for the acts of others is barbaric and grossly unethical. But old beliefs die hard, and Christians still believe this nonsense, and many accept this horrific story without thinking deeply about it. And most Christians are not willing to engage in an open debate about the ethical and moral connotations of this story, and what it says about their their faith and about themselves as people.

I agree. But I want to emphasize that my own interest in sacrifice, in this thread, is just: how does it work?

'God does miracles like universe-making, so why not this too?' would not be a reasonable answer. The miracles are still unreasonable in themselves.

Poorly evidenced? Yes. But I want to add: And inherently irrational? Yes.

Sacrifice to atone for sins is so unlike the rest of God's alleged miracle, nature. Except one place: the human imagination. Magic and dreams and myths work by intuited associations between things. In magic, sticking an effigy with a pin is supposed to hurt a person distantly. The effigy takes the place of the target. Similar to a sacrifice serving as a "taking the place" of another. Our minds come up with these imaginary connections between things intuitively. Meaning, irrationally. So there is no reason to the act of sacrifice in itself (except the imagination's kooky associations). Pile on reasons to excuse the intuitive irrational belief in it, and it remains irrational anyway.

 

[atrib]

Christianity rests on the foundation that a human sacrifice was needed to allow God to forgive humans for their transgressions and progress to an afterlife. To understand why this claim exists, context is important. Stories of sacrifices intended to appease gods are commonplace in the ancient world. The ancient Egyptians, Indians, American Indians, and people living in the middle east all had rituals involving sacrifices of living things, including human beings. So the Bible is not extraordinary in this regard, it mimics the then current beliefs and practices.

Of course, in the context of social norms today, the idea of sacrificing an innocent human to atone for the acts of others is barbaric and grossly unethical. But old beliefs die hard, and Christians still believe this nonsense, and many accept this horrific story without thinking deeply about it. And most Christians are not willing to engage in an open debate about the ethical and moral connotations of this story, and what it says about their their faith and about themselves as people.

I agree. But I want to emphasize that my own interest in sacrifice, in this thread, is just: how does it work?

'God does miracles like universe-making, so why not this too?' would not be a reasonable answer. The miracles are still unreasonable in themselves.

Poorly evidenced? Yes. But I want to add: And inherently irrational? Yes.

Sacrifice to atone for sins is so unlike the rest of God's alleged miracle, nature. Except one place: the human imagination. Magic and dreams and myths work by intuited associations between things. In magic, sticking an effigy with a pin is supposed to hurt a person distantly. The effigy takes the place of the target. Similar to a sacrifice serving as a "taking the place" of another. Our minds come up with these imaginary connections between things intuitively. Meaning, irrationally. So there is no reason to the act of sacrifice in itself (except the imagination's kooky associations). Pile on reasons to excuse the intuitive irrational belief in it, and it remains irrational anyway.

Very true. There is no logical reason I can think of that a technologically and emotionally sophisticated god would need, or desire a human sacrifice, or the sacrifice of some other living thing, in order to permit itself to do certain things. The entire foundation of the Christian faith, of being saved in an afterlife, because such a sacrifice of an innocent human was allegedly made, is absurd. There are many other things about the Christian faith that are absurd: humans being cursed with the sins of their ancestors, salvation through submission, and damnation to eternal torture as an alternative, just to name a few. And the real perversion of the belief system is that in the minds of Christians, these actions are consistent with a description of god as a loving father and savior. To swallow these premises without question, you have to have the mindset of a slave that has never known freedom.

In reality, gods are created in the images of humans. The people who wrote the Bible stories lived in a world of brutality and violence dominated by warring factions led by tyrannical kings and warlords. These tyrants could often be appeased by offerings of money and material objects; if you pay this tyrant a tribute every year he will not kill your family. It is not surprising that the god of the Bible ends up being depicted as a psychopathic, vengeful, homicidal tyrant who needs the ultimate tribute of human sacrifice to be appeased.

 

[skepticalbip]

In reality, gods are created in the images of humans. The people who wrote the Bible stories lived in a world of brutality and violence dominated by warring factions led by tyrannical kings and warlords. These tyrants could often be appeased by offerings of money and material objects; if you pay this tyrant a tribute every year he will not kill your family. It is not surprising that the god of the Bible ends up being depicted as a psychopathic, vengeful, homicidal tyrant who needs the ultimate tribute of human sacrifice to be appeased.

Yes, and the reason that Christians self identify as "God fearing Christians". It is the fear that their psychopathic god will condemn them to eternal hell if they displease him in any way rather than believing in a loving god that understands, cares. and forgives.