atrib
Sorry for the delay
Responding to post 367…
That was great and very specific. It lays a great foundation for me to point out our different lines of reasoning. And that is all I’m doing here. I’m attempting to just show you the reasoning a theist employs to addresses this issue.
But first, in my last post (362) to you, I addressed a concern you did not bring back up here. That was the issue of you calling my reasoning presumptuous because my premises are stated as true. I tried to point out that ….that is the way all arguments are constructed. It does not mean I’m being presumptuous. You certainly can challenge the truth value of every premise and conclusion. Is that understood now?
You have provided no evidence to support these premises. All you have done is call them "facts". The same type of argument could be used to demonstrate the veracity of any number of other stories humans have made up, as the
Oz analogy on RationalWiki demonstrates. Without a foundation based on evidence, the argument is flawed.
Even assuming all of your premises to be factual wouldn't alter a reasonable, unbiased person's conclusion that the resurrection story is likely untrue. Even if we were to discover the sworn testimony of a dozen eyewitnesses to the alleged resurrection and aerobatics event, and we could authoritatively establish that this testimony had passed unchanged through the past 2,000 years, and that the testimony was sincere, it still would not meet the extremely high burden of evidence needed to hold such a proposition to be factual.
We have an
enormous body of high quality evidence for the naturalistic origin of such stories. Practically every culture around the world has invented stories describing seemingly supernatural events which are usually attributed to intervention by entities with supernatural powers. And this is still happening today, as new cults are born and flourish within our own lifetimes.
On the other hand, the evidence for the Jesus resurrection story
is extremely weak. And, such events never occur in the real world. Therefore, an extraordinary volume of high quality evidence is needed to overcome the extraordinary volume of high quality evidence that is available to support the naturalistic origin proposition.
Completely with you, you are arguing against miracles…..but your argument is begging the question…..you are arguing in a circle. I’ll attempt to show you that at the end. But first…………
1. This is big. This is what you are not accounting for when you speak against resurrection. Our definition and understandings of miracles is different. Yours is governed and limited by your epistemology of strict materialistic naturalism. Thus to you miracles are a violation of nature and must be naturally explained. I get it. You are begging the question for naturalism. Specifically more on that later.
I think naturalism is the best tool we have today to build an ontology regarding how the universe works, be it at the most fundamental level with a few, sparse elements, or at higher emergent levels using models or theories constructed with empirical evidence. This is because there is a vast amount of irrefutable evidence that naturalism works. You are able to sit at your desk and communicate with strangers around the world using tools that are products of naturalistic thinking; give me an example of an equivalent set of tools that has been developed using a spiritual or supernatural epistemological foundation.
At the end of the day, I am interested in the truth. And I am willing to consider whatever epistemological tool works best. So I put forward this challenge to you:
Show me a way to seek and reliably evaluate truth claims about the supernatural or spiritual world.
I am calling your bluff. I am asking you to define the epistemological tools
you used to construct the ontology you believe to be factual.
(1) Describe the ontology you have constructed where gods and spirits are allowed to exist and intervene in our universe,
(2) describe how such interactions work and how they are in conformance what we observe (the laws of nature), and
(3) describe the epistemological process you used to construct this ontology.
You do not understand what a theist means by miracle. A miracle is an event by definition that can’t be explained naturally because it is supernatural. By supernatural we mean beyond nature. Miracles are NOT a violation of natural they are an overpowering of nature that can’t be explained naturally. Do you see the difference?
You are attacking a strawman. I took the trouble of defining some of the important terms I am using in an earlier post:
In the context of our discussion, a miracle would be an event that is believed to have violated natural laws, whether that is true or not. Like those involving reanimation of humans who have been dead for some days, or of said humans flying up into the sky under their own power.
I qualified my previous statement because certain events can appear to be miraculous because they involve technology that is not available to the viewers. It is hypothetically possible that human corpses can be reanimated even after days following mortality, and that humans can be levitated into the sky. It is hypothetically possible that if a universe creator god exists, it has the power to achieve such events that would appear to be miraculous to us. The real question is, why should we believe that such a creator god exists and that it intervened in the very specific manner described in the Bible?
But……
As soon as I say that you likely further reason against me….well…..that opens the door to all fantasy, Santa, etc. Because that is your definition of supernatural events ALL are fantasy. Guilt by association.
No, that is NOT what I am saying. My position is that all claims that apparently violate the known laws of nature should be treated with extreme skepticism. And that the evidentiary standard required to validate such claims should be extraordinarily high, consistent with the extraordinary nature of the claims. The difference is not subtle. Every claim should be evaluated on its own merits, be it tooth fairies, or the resurrection of human corpses and their controlled flight into the upper atmosphere.
But……
From theistic understanding……… It does not open the door to fantasy and here is why……reason still governs what we can understand about the supernatural.
You are wrong again. By definition, supernatural events are events that never happen, and they cannot be observed and tested, or recreated in a lab. Because the laws of the universe do not permit supernatural events to occur, and we have no experience with such phenomena, it would be impossible for a human being to use reason to understand supernatural phenomena. As a corollary, if we do observe an event that
appears to violate the known laws of the universe, then our logical conclusion should be that our understanding of the universe is incomplete or flawed (as we know it to be), and that the event was driven by some natural phenomena that we are not presently aware of.
Hence the argument. I was arguing for one specific event to be miraculous because it is reasonable God exists.
This is a baseless argument based on a "premise" that is not supported by evidence. There is no evidence to even suggest the existence of any god, much less the proposition that "it is reasonable to believe the Christian god exists". In fact, literally every single true claim we have ever made about our reality involves zero intervention by a supernatural god.
When I suggest that the supernatural exists I’m not inferring all fantasy is true. I’m reasoning TO the event being miraculous once we have eliminated ALL of the reasonable natural explanations. So yes naturalism has a prominent role here.
Great. Now all you have to do is eliminate all possible (not reasonable) naturalistic explanations, known and unknown. Now would be a good time to start doing just that.
See……
You started out there when you admitted (post 238) that miracles were possible given God’s existence.
Actually, this is what I said:
If a god exists that can create universes, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that this god could also suspend the laws of nature as it sees fit.
I have assumed that a god that possesses the technological ability to create universes may also possesses the ability to interact with its creations in technically sophisticated ways we may not understand. It's an assumption that would have to be verified as part of our investigative due diligence, but we can cross that bridge if we get to it.
So stay with me here…..if miracles are possible then I need provide and argument to delineated the resurrection from fantasy. Hence my argument that the resurrection was a miracle, because given those four facts you cannot have a better natural explanation unless you beg the question that all explanations must be natural.
Since…….
Then you have turned this back around the 180 degrees and think I’m trying to argue that the resurrection proves God’s existence. That I’m not doing with the argument I gave you. More later.
First, I don't particularly care if the explanation relies on supernatural premises. What I do deeply care about is that
the premises be supported by appropriate evidence. You are allowed to submit supernatural explanations as long as you can support them with an appropriate level of evidence.
Second, there is no evidence to establish either of the following propositions:
1. A god exists.
2. About 2,000 years ago, the corpse of a man named Jesus was resurrected and then levitated into the atmosphere, seemingly under its own power.
In other words, based on the available evidence, neither of the following arguments can be demonstrated to be true:
1. A god exists, therefore it performed the seemingly miraculous events described in the Bible.
2. Seemingly miraculous events occurred as described in the Bible, therefore god exists.
Moreover, for argument (1), even if you could demonstrate that a god exists, it would still not necessarily follow that this god intervened in our affairs in the manner described in the Bible regarding the Jesus resurrection story.
And for argument (2), even if you could demonstrate that the miraculous events described in the Bible actually happened (i.e. the laws of the universe were broken or overpowered), it would still not follow that these events could be attributed to Biblegod's intervention.
2. You keep referencing my agreement with you. But misunderstand how I agreeing with you. I agree that as you nakedly put it “flying zombies” are fantasy. My argument was to reason why the resurrection was not naked (non-evidenced) fantasy. Think about that. I must present reasoning that separates the resurrection from fantasy….hence the argument. So as I pointed out to you several times…..my assertion that the resurrection was miraculous was not naked fantasy…..I provided evidence and reasoning that would separate the resurrection from naked fantasy.
Your best argument appears to rely on the premise that the alleged witnesses to the resurrection had no motive to lie, or to behave the way they allegedly behaved in the story. You are convinced that nothing else could possibly explain why the story exists, other than the story being true. Thats all you have, your personal lack of imagination in coming up with an alternative explanation. Your argument is not just a naked assertion, it is also an example of special pleading taken to the extreme.
So…..yes…..
People should be skeptical of the resurrection being fantasy…..I was. But I used to just blindly equate the resurrection (supernatural event) with fantasy. The resurrection was dismissed by quilt of association. And that is what you are reasoning there with your conclusion statement 3 above.
The resurrection story was dismissed because the appropriate burden of evidence was not met.
So………...
Being skeptical is important. Thus I challenge you to analyze your skeptical reasoning here. You blindly beg that question for strict naturalism and conclude all supernatural events are fantasy by nothing more than a blind inference to a guilt of association.
I did no such thing. I am interested only in the truth, as explained previously.
And special pleading again.
Thus you can’t address the argument I gave you. You keep countering with irrational tangents to the reasoning because you can’t consider the reasonableness of the supernatural to begin with.
Your proposition regarding a supernatural explanation to the origin of the resurrection story was rejected as unreasonable because the burden of evidence was not met.
But lets shine a light on your argument one more time. It seemingly goes something like this:
I can't think of any good reason why the witnesses to the resurrection would lie, or behave the way they did in the story. And I can't think of any good reason why someone would fabricate such a story. Therefore the resurrection story is likely to be true.
If I am misstating your argument, please correct me.
But that is where I was when you set the stage back in post 242. My argument was not trying to prove miracles are possible that seemed granted for sake to continuing the discussion. My argument was the give evidence and reasoning that those four facts around the event of the resurrection were not fantasy but miraculous.
Even assuming your premises to be factual would not satisfy the burden of proof required to support such an extraordinary claim. We have been through this before, and I am getting really tired of repeating myself.
This would include the Jesus resurrection story, the story of Hanuman the flying monkey god, the story of Bumba vomiting up the Sun, the Moon and life, the story of Muhammad riding up to Heaven on a winged horse, and so on.
I get that….but your reasoning is overtly fallacious. It is reasoning by simple guilt of association. At least that is how it is presented there.
You know how you can get rid of the "guilt by association"? Provide the evidence that sets your story apart from all the others!
The standard for evidence is extraordinarily high, and consistent with the extraordinary nature of the claims, because such claims go against everything we know about reality.
Two parts.
1. This is self-defeating. It sounds reasonable, but it is not. Think about it. That is, as stated, a universal truth. Where is your extraordinary evidence that it is true? I addressed this with bilby earlier with flying horses.
The basis for all belief is sufficient evidence. Your subjective inference to the extraordinary is a volitional bar setting and self-defeating. But it sounds cool.
We are debating semantics here. Consider the three propositions numbered 1 through 3 below:
1. I own a personal computer.
2. I own a yacht worth US $500,000,000.
3. I can overpower the laws of nature to bring corpses back to life, and make them fly off into space under their own power.
Proposition 1 is not extraordinary in any meaningful sense of the word. We have plenty of evidence that people all over the world own personal computers, and it would be reasonable for someone living in the United States and posting on the internet to own such a device. Most reasonable people would have no trouble accepting such a claim as credible based simply on the word of the person making the claim.
Proposition 2 is somewhat extraordinary. There is quite a lot of evidence that such yachts exist, and that they are owned by people. However, the evidence also tells us that very few people actually have the financial resources to buy such a yacht. In other words, people owning yachts worth US $500,000,000 is a rare event, and consequently, most reasonable people would require a higher burden of evidence in order to be satisfied that the claim were likely true; they would be unlikely to simply take someone's word for it.
Proposition 3 is extraordinary. All the evidence we have tells us that corpses can't be revived after several days of being dead, and that corpses cannot fly into the upper atmosphere under their own power. There is an extraordinary volume of extremely high quality evidence that tells us that this claim is likely to be untrue. Consequently, a reasonable person would require an extraordinary volume of extremely high quality evidence to be swayed otherwise, to overcome all the evidence to the contrary.
So tell me, what level of evidence do
you consider "sufficient" to believe in the Jesus resurrection story. And while you are at it, tell us what happens when you apply this same standard of "sufficient" evidence to other, similarly extraordinary claims.
2….” because such claims go against everything we know about reality. “….but can you see our differences here….. “Know” is the key here….b/c you’re making a philosophical statement about epistemology.
Your statement about reality is blind to the fact that it begs the question for natural explanations only, mine does not. So your statement infers God’s (supernatural) existence is unreasonable. But our discussion was granted those grounds. Because you were trying to understand a theists reasoning here. So again if God’s existence is reasonable….then the reality would include the supernatural, thus it does not go against what one can know about reality.
I am going to quote the following passage from the book "
The Big Picture" by physicist Dr. Sean Carroll (page 134). Maybe this will help you better understand my position.
Dr. Sean Carroll:
The relationship between science and naturalism is not that science presumes naturalism; it's that science has provisionally concluded that naturalism is the best picture of the world we have available. We lay out all of the ontologies that we can think of, assign some prior credences to them, collect as much information as we can, and update those credences accordingly. At the end of the process, we find that naturalsim gives the best account of the evidence we have, and assign it the highest credence. New evidence could lead to future adjustments in our credences, but right now naturalism is well ahead of its alternatives.
Again I’m not saying your epistemology has to match mine. I’m just trying to help you understand that the “reality” you talk about is different from mine.
So this is your arbitrary standard …………
The standard of evidence requires that all naturalistic explanations be ruled out before we can consider a supernatural explanation to be credible.
….founded on your naturalism only standard. With that said, I do agree that all natural explanations should weighed and considered. Remember I’m asserting that a miracle is specifically a supernatural event that cannot be explained naturally. So I’m with you there just not to the extraordinary theatrical level.
Its not theatrical; its a statement of fact. I can point to billions of cases where corpses were never reanimated and flew off into the sky. You can't point to a single case where this actually happened, in all of mankind's history. So, yes, the weight of the evidence is very one-sided, and it would require an extraordinary effort to set aside this mountain of evidence.
Continuing…….
Which is pretty much impossible to satisfy for any such claim that humans have ever come up with.
…..from your philosophical position IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. That is where you are missing it, right there. Your philosophical position is a miracle is a violation of natural law because it begs the question that the supernatural does not exist.
You are misrepresenting my position again.
I keep trying (again post 238) to point this out to you….If god’s exists miracles are possible. Not the other way around…..like here……
In the case of the Jesus resurrection story, this high standard is not going to be satisfied simply by speculating on the motives of the characters allegedly involved with the story.
…..I’m not arguing that the resurrection infers God’s existence is reasonable.
You are misrepresenting my position again.
I’m arguing the the resurrection was a miracle given the context for discussion that miracles are possible given God’s existence. You agreed. Not that God existed, but that miracles are possible if he existed. So the stage then was set for me to provide reasoning as to why a particular event could be considered miraculous. Hence my argument.
Great. So we have conditionally agreed (see above) on a hypothetical proposition. Can we move on to the evidence now?
But……
You offered what you reasoned to be a better natural explanation of those four facts. And that was….. that people made things up.
It is a better explanation because we have mountains of extremely high quality evidence that people make up stories. And none that corpses can be reanimated and fly off into the sky.
And, once again for the record, there potentially exists an unknown number of naturalistic explanations for the origin of the Jesus resurrection story. "Someone made something up" just happens to be one of the simplest.
So OK…we reasonably began to discuss the two explanations.
And in that context…….that context…..
I challenged the motivation (you brought it up) of the disciples to make it up….
Just to counter your explanation. That’s all……
You then…..constructed a straw man………..
Turned the issue of motivation into my entire argument and inferred my reasoning inadequate, insufficient and non-extraordinary.
BUT…………….
That was not my argument….it was a counter to your explanation regarding motivation.
Be Fair.
Point taken. I may have misunderstood where you were going with your argument. So go ahead and present your full argument. Assuming that is why you are participating in the thread.
