Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Learner]

Thats what I thought you said, thats why I asked if there were (if you can provide) other people around that time with the same ressurections in texts or reports or what ever, like Remez and Lumpy has been asking. ... perhaps even include those from the psuedo-ressurection list.

The following books provide an exhaustive list of claims similar to the Jesus resurrection/personal savior story. If you are actually interested in doing your own research, this would be an excellent place to start.

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical

Or if you are lazy, you can watch his lectures on the same subject on youtube.

Atrib helpful as usual. Trust me I will look into it (the video).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Interesting info and noted. Blood and water was mentioned coming from Jesus's side wound. Now I remember watching a vid where medical experts were asked about the significance of such a thing. IIRC they said it was fatal and to do with the lungs etc..I think

I know the video you're referring to and I'm glad you mentioned it. You know what can cause hypoxia (which in turn can cause coma)? Pneumonia. You know what happens during pneumonia? Among other things, you can develop what's known as "water on the lung" (aka, pleural effusion).

The "pleural space" where this typically clear fluid gathers is at the bottom of the lungs, such as in this graphic:



So for a soldier stabbing upward into a man's rib cage from below--a man who had suffered from pneumonia that had been exacerbated by hours of torture no less--not only would blood and what would appear to be water come out, but a coma from hypoxia would also be expected, if in fact a noticeable amount of fluid came out.

So, once again, even if (hell, especially if) we take just John's version of events at face value, of the two claims (resurrection from the dead or coma), coma is still the most reasonable explanation.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

So, once again, even if (hell, especially if) we take just John's version of events at face value, of the two claims (resurrection from the dead or coma), coma is still the most reasonable explanation.

I'm not sure about "most reasonable". There are many reasonable explanations for the Jesus 'trial, suffering, death, resurrection, and return' story. The one I find 'most reasonable' is as a mythological story who's motif is followed in almost all mythological hero stories in all cultures... in other words, a metaphor. I see no reason to accept that the story was actually a reliably accurate and detailed description of events several decades earlier (down to conversational quotations) so see no reason to try to justify any element in the story.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

... snip ...

So, once again, even if (hell, especially if) we take just John's version of events at face value, of the two claims (resurrection from the dead or coma), coma is still the most reasonable explanation.

I'm not sure about "most reasonable".

That's why I qualified it as the most reasonable of the two claims (resurrection from the dead or coma). I agree that the most reasonable of all would be it was just made up.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

So, once again, even if (hell, especially if) we take just John's version of events at face value, of the two claims (resurrection from the dead or coma), coma is still the most reasonable explanation.

I'm not sure about "most reasonable".

That's why I qualified it as the most reasonable of the two claims (resurrection from the dead or coma). I agree that the most reasonable of all would be it was just made up.

I understand, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you accepted the story. It is just that it bothers me to see people get sucked into theists' acceptance of the literal truth of events and offer alternative interpretations as if accepting that that the description of events are actually true and accurate but misinterpreted.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Interesting info and noted. Blood and water was mentioned coming from Jesus's side wound. Now I remember watching a vid where medical experts were asked about the significance of such a thing. IIRC they said it was fatal and to do with the lungs etc..I think

I know the video you're referring to and I'm glad you mentioned it. You know what can cause hypoxia (which in turn can cause coma)? Pneumonia. You know what happens during pneumonia? Among other things, you can develop what's known as "water on the lung" (aka, pleural effusion).

The "pleural space" where this typically clear fluid gathers is at the bottom of the lungs, such as in this graphic:

View attachment 22452

So for a soldier stabbing upward into a man's rib cage from below--a man who had suffered from pneumonia that had been exacerbated by hours of torture no less--not only would blood and what would appear to be water come out, but a coma from hypoxia would also be expected, if in fact a noticeable amount of fluid came out.

So, once again, even if (hell, especially if) we take just John's version of events at face value, of the two claims (resurrection from the dead or coma), coma is still the most reasonable explanation.

Or the writer was connecting Jesus and Moses, wherein Moses turned the waters of the Nile into blood.

It's also important to remember that the wedding of Cana does not appear in any of the Synoptics. Fanfiction invented it in John and of course John was chosen along with the synoptics to be liturgical. The blood and water simply connects jesus the hero with other things.

 

[remez]

This post is only about the context that God’s existence was granted/assumed for sake of conversation and questioning your direction from here.

Please be fair.

"Be fair" that you've assumed a conclusion to be true and worked backwards from there, so that you can then base an additional argument on the fact that the conclusion has been assumed to be established, while the whole time others have pointed out that you can't do that, you have insulted us and tortured logic and language to pretend that you haven't done precisely what you just conceded you have done?

Is that what you want others to "be fair" about?

ABOUT the overt difference between a granted/given context forsake of moving a conversation forward
and
an outright groundless assumption
here...........

This post is only about the context that God’s existence was granted/assumed for sake of conversation and questioning your direction from here.

Please be fair.

"Be fair" that you've assumed a conclusion to be true and worked backwards from there, so that you can then base an additional argument on the fact that the conclusion has been assumed to be established, while the whole time others have pointed out that you can't do that, you have insulted us and tortured logic and language to pretend that you haven't done precisely what you just conceded you have done?

Snore…………I know others have pointed it out. YOU SHOULD’VE kept reading……

I have been very clear about the given context from the beginning, not only with you but several others as well. For instance Atheos 290 and bilby 292 (post 290 would also address your bogus straw man assertion about def of miracles) I explained that if I was trying to “prove” EoG I would not provide the RA.

……… I have addressed that several times……a…long ….time….ago. Go back and read. If the context of EoG was not given (for the sake of conversation) then I would not have provided the RA. I would have needed to begin with my reasoning and evidence for EoG.
To continue…….

My ONLY mistake was thinking you were on board. I thought you were for the precise reason that you wanted to avoid the KCA.

And ............

I also thought YOU WANTED to understand the Christian perspective on it. I really wasn’t looking for a debate but just show you how a Christian apologist reasons through your concern.

I’m not sure how I can make that any simpler but I’ll try, because for some reason you and skep seem to be having a hard time with this.

I presented 2 reasons why I thought he was with me in the context of EoG as a GIVEN. I thought he wanted to avoid our historical battles over the KCA, to discuss his concerns with Christians and miracles.
So….
Do you know what the KCA is? It is an argument for the reasonableness of God’s existence. It is not an argument FROM his existence but TO his existence. It does not assume EoG, it is an argument that reasonably concludes his existence. Atrib, skep, bibly, DBT, abaddon, Juma others and I have been debating that for years. Therefore historically speaking it would have been reopening an old can of worms. Thus I was clear that the context was GIVEN for the sake of discussing his concerns of miracles and avoiding the old can of words of EoG. You are new here and would not have known our past on that old can of worms.

(for fun here is 30 pages worth of battle from over 3.5 years ago …..
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...f-Reasoning-Scientific-Method-vs-Faith/page15 also check out the middle of post 450 in this thread, of my short testimony of converting to faith from skepticism. (Just quoted it in the next post to skep))

Now regarding the second reason I thought he was with me on the granted EoG…… “I also thought YOU WANTED to understand the Christian perspective on it. I really wasn’t looking for a debate but just show you how a Christian apologist reasons through your concern.” Again his concern was…..

Is it really that hard to articulate a good reason for why you believe the Christ mythology?

Here is the articulation plain and simple.


The theist has reason to believe God exists and miraculously created this universe. Thus if God exists and created the universe, then walking on water would be a cinch for him. Really its that simple. If its reasonable that God exists then it reasonable miracles are possible.

Is that reasonable?

To clarify, I'm not asking if God's existence is reasonable. I'm asking you if you understand that miracles would be reasonable given that God exists? For that was the context of your query.

I was clear.
And he agreed.

Our conversation then turned to….I thought, to how then do we rationalize a miraculous explanation over a natural explanation. Simply put 99+% of the time you don’t. But there are two I’m ready to argue have a better supernatural explanation. I chose the resurrection (RA) because of Paul’s bold assertion that if Christ is not risen from the dead then your faith is in vein.

So in conclusion…… I do not outright assume EoG. I have reasons for EoG, (a battleground of debate for sure). But that was not the focus of the battle here. So for the sake of moving the conversation along I clearly presented a context of EoG as a GIVEN as to not battle EoG here.

The rest of my last post………….

Do you really want to go back to EoG and the KCA?
Or
Discuss miracles given the reasonableness of God’s existence?

Your call.

…..….clearly and boldly asserts I’m ready to argue for the reasonableness of EoG. Meaning I do not assume the EoG.
Do you get it now?
And
If you do….please explain it to skep.

 

[remez]

This post is only about the context that God’s existence was granted/assumed for sake of conversation and questioning your direction from here.

Please be fair.

"Be fair" that you've assumed a conclusion to be true and worked backwards from there, so that you can then base an additional argument on the fact that the conclusion has been assumed to be established, while the whole time others have pointed out that you can't do that, you have insulted us and tortured logic and language to pretend that you haven't done precisely what you just conceded you have done?

It is rather sad that Remez has no understanding of logic. Assuming the conclusion is a recognized logical fallacy so only useful for spinning fallacious stories.

Using his "argument" of first assuming that "if god is real" he spins a story of why it is reasonable to believe the Bible miracles. But wait... using that same argument, would he agree that if we first assume that that god is Kim Il Sung as believed by his cult in North Korea would he then agree that it is reasonable to believe the thousands of miracles attributed to Kim in his eight volume biography?

Of course he wouldn't, as has been demonstrated in his rants, he just switches to another logical fallacy - special pleading.

Parsed….

It is rather sad that Remez has no understanding of logic. Assuming the conclusion is a recognized logical fallacy so only useful for spinning fallacious stories.

What is sad is your weak and tortured reasoning to transform a Given for the sake of conversation into and case of special pleading. For I do not w/o context assume EoG. I have explained it to you several times. You and I have gone head to head on my evidence and reasoning for EoG. Have been for years. I explained it in detail in post 450…a personal testimony that science, philosophy and theology (in that order lead me to my justified belief that God exists……..

Focus here………. “You accept the Bible story as absolute truth and then make asinine assertions trying to justify and support that assumption….”
Your problem there….and I keep addressing this…..is your “AND THEN”. Your assumed order of your operations is backwards for me. Now it is not backwards for someone operating w/a blind faith. Those people do exist. But it is backwards for me.

In very short verse…..sorry administrators….

Science and reasoning made a god reasonable to me. My search then reasonably lead to the Biblical God was the only one reasonable of all the contenders. Now with that already established “IT THEN” became reasonable to investigate the Bible further for validity. I’m not done with ALL of that yet…..but one of the “stories” (to use your term) I reasoned through was the resurrection. And this argument I find very convincing, compelling and defendable. Again that was very short. I didn’t want to preach a testimony to you, because this board is a little testy there. But I reasoned to God not from God. Originally, prior to science and reasoning, the biblical God was just one of the contenders that were all pushed aside by my apathy to all things religious anyway. I have reasons based upon evidence why I believe he exists. THUS my faith is not blind. If I didn’t have the evidence I have I would not believe in him.

Now…..
My conclusions are certainly open for debate. But if you are going to debate my conclusion you must look at the evidence and reason that lead me to that conclusion……AND STOP….telling me I don’t have any evidence b/c you are assuming that I just assume he exists. Thus your special pleading counter is refuted here as well. I was waiting for you to do your part there and make your case for that naked assertion from earlier, but it seemed reasonable to refute your blind faith and special pleading counters at the same time with the one stone.

…… read it this time.


But now to save face you keep...... weakly twisting my stated GIVEN context…….. (of EoG for sake of moving forward a conversation on miraculous vs natural explanations) ……into a case of special pleading, because I (by your weak twist) assume EoG.

Be reasonable.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is rather sad that Remez has no understanding of logic. Assuming the conclusion is a recognized logical fallacy so only useful for spinning fallacious stories.

Using his "argument" of first assuming that "if god is real" he spins a story of why it is reasonable to believe the Bible miracles. But wait... using that same argument, would he agree that if we first assume that that god is Kim Il Sung as believed by his cult in North Korea would he then agree that it is reasonable to believe the thousands of miracles attributed to Kim in his eight volume biography?

Of course he wouldn't, as has been demonstrated in his rants, he just switches to another logical fallacy - special pleading.

Parsed….

It is rather sad that Remez has no understanding of logic. Assuming the conclusion is a recognized logical fallacy so only useful for spinning fallacious stories.

What is sad is your weak and tortured reasoning to transform a Given for the sake of conversation into and case of special pleading. For I do not w/o context assume EoG. I have explained it to you several times. You and I have gone head to head on my evidence and reasoning for EoG. Have been for years. I explained it in detail in post 450…a personal testimony that science, philosophy and theology (in that order lead me to my justified belief that God exists……..

Focus here………. “You accept the Bible story as absolute truth and then make asinine assertions trying to justify and support that assumption….”
Your problem there….and I keep addressing this…..is your “AND THEN”. Your assumed order of your operations is backwards for me. Now it is not backwards for someone operating w/a blind faith. Those people do exist. But it is backwards for me.

In very short verse…..sorry administrators….

Science and reasoning made a god reasonable to me. My search then reasonably lead to the Biblical God was the only one reasonable of all the contenders. Now with that already established “IT THEN” became reasonable to investigate the Bible further for validity. I’m not done with ALL of that yet…..but one of the “stories” (to use your term) I reasoned through was the resurrection. And this argument I find very convincing, compelling and defendable. Again that was very short. I didn’t want to preach a testimony to you, because this board is a little testy there. But I reasoned to God not from God. Originally, prior to science and reasoning, the biblical God was just one of the contenders that were all pushed aside by my apathy to all things religious anyway. I have reasons based upon evidence why I believe he exists. THUS my faith is not blind. If I didn’t have the evidence I have I would not believe in him.

Now…..
My conclusions are certainly open for debate. But if you are going to debate my conclusion you must look at the evidence and reason that lead me to that conclusion……AND STOP….telling me I don’t have any evidence b/c you are assuming that I just assume he exists. Thus your special pleading counter is refuted here as well. I was waiting for you to do your part there and make your case for that naked assertion from earlier, but it seemed reasonable to refute your blind faith and special pleading counters at the same time with the one stone.

…… read it this time.


But now to save face you keep...... weakly twisting my stated GIVEN context…….. (of EoG for sake of moving forward a conversation on miraculous vs natural explanations) ……into a case of special pleading, because I (by your weak twist) assume EoG.

Be reasonable.

That jumbled mass of nonsense (I put in bold) that you put in quotes attributed to me was not posted by me. I assume that it was actually nonsense written by you. If so, then it clearly demonstrates that the words "science" and "reason" are completely foreign concepts to you. The fact that you assume and assert something to be true does not make it either true nor scientifically or reasonably arrived at.

 

[bilby]

If we assume ad argumentum the existence of a god that can perform miracles, then we can 'reasonably' and 'logically' conclude absolutely ANY assertion to be reasonable.

That which proves everything, proves nothing.

It's perfectly reasonable, given the existence of God, that I am the Messiah. And that you should send me your life savings.

 

[atrib]

Thats what I thought you said, thats why I asked if there were (if you can provide) other people around that time with the same ressurections in texts or reports or what ever, like Remez and Lumpy has been asking. ... perhaps even include those from the psuedo-ressurection list.

The following books provide an exhaustive list of claims similar to the Jesus resurrection/personal savior story. If you are actually interested in doing your own research, this would be an excellent place to start.

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical

Or if you are lazy, you can watch his lectures on the same subject on youtube.

Atrib helpful as usual. Trust me I will look into it (the video).

The videos are worth watching. Dr. Carrier is an excellent speaker, the information is well presented and easy to follow, and he makes a very compelling argument for the case that the flesh-and-blood Jesus character described in the gospels was a work of fiction created by Mark. While the lectures summarize the evidence, the analyses, and the conclusions, the books provide a comprehensive review of the literature, and a detailed description of the analyses that were conducted by Dr. Carrier.

 

[remez]

Parsed….


What is sad is your weak and tortured reasoning to transform a Given for the sake of conversation into and case of special pleading. For I do not w/o context assume EoG. I have explained it to you several times. You and I have gone head to head on my evidence and reasoning for EoG. Have been for years. I explained it in detail in post 450…a personal testimony that science, philosophy and theology (in that order lead me to my justified belief that God exists……..

Focus here………. “You accept the Bible story as absolute truth and then make asinine assertions trying to justify and support that assumption….”
Your problem there….and I keep addressing this…..is your “AND THEN”. Your assumed order of your operations is backwards for me. Now it is not backwards for someone operating w/a blind faith. Those people do exist. But it is backwards for me.

In very short verse…..sorry administrators….

Science and reasoning made a god reasonable to me. My search then reasonably lead to the Biblical God was the only one reasonable of all the contenders. Now with that already established “IT THEN” became reasonable to investigate the Bible further for validity. I’m not done with ALL of that yet…..but one of the “stories” (to use your term) I reasoned through was the resurrection. And this argument I find very convincing, compelling and defendable. Again that was very short. I didn’t want to preach a testimony to you, because this board is a little testy there. But I reasoned to God not from God. Originally, prior to science and reasoning, the biblical God was just one of the contenders that were all pushed aside by my apathy to all things religious anyway. I have reasons based upon evidence why I believe he exists. THUS my faith is not blind. If I didn’t have the evidence I have I would not believe in him.

Now…..
My conclusions are certainly open for debate. But if you are going to debate my conclusion you must look at the evidence and reason that lead me to that conclusion……AND STOP….telling me I don’t have any evidence b/c you are assuming that I just assume he exists. Thus your special pleading counter is refuted here as well. I was waiting for you to do your part there and make your case for that naked assertion from earlier, but it seemed reasonable to refute your blind faith and special pleading counters at the same time with the one stone.

…… read it this time.


But now to save face you keep...... weakly twisting my stated GIVEN context…….. (of EoG for sake of moving forward a conversation on miraculous vs natural explanations) ……into a case of special pleading, because I (by your weak twist) assume EoG.

Be reasonable.

That jumbled mass of nonsense (I put in bold) that you put in quotes attributed to me was not posted by me. I assume that it was actually nonsense written by you. ....

Sorry...my mistake....easy to fix.....clearly it was me quoting ME.

To be quicker with my responses I copy "reply with quotes" into a word processor, in a temp file on my desktop to track the entire conversation I even copy the quote boxes...QUOTE=skepticalbip;692984] and just switch the names. I simply forgot to switch it to QUOTE=remez;692984]. There certainly was no malicious intent just a bad proof read.

If so, then it clearly demonstrates that the words "science" and "reason" are completely foreign concepts to you. The fact that you assume and assert something to be true does not make it either true nor scientifically or reasonably arrived at.

That is a dodge on your part for two reasons…

(1) I did not assume EoG. I just provided my path from skepiticsm to Theism to provide context on the order of operations. I did assert that my reasoning therein was open for debate. Thus rendering your assertion/assumption premature.

(2) You failed to address the main issue of the post.

 

[remez]

Atrib helpful as usual. Trust me I will look into it (the video).

The videos are worth watching. Dr. Carrier is an excellent speaker, the information is well presented and easy to follow, and he makes a very compelling argument for the case that the flesh-and-blood Jesus character described in the gospels was a work of fiction created by Mark. While the lectures summarize the evidence, the analyses, and the conclusions, the books provide a comprehensive review of the literature, and a detailed description of the analyses that were conducted by Dr. Carrier.

That's the math? RC's R-R scale is farcical to say the least.
Seriously?
check out post 334.

 

[bilby]

That jumbled mass of nonsense (I put in bold) that you put in quotes attributed to me was not posted by me. I assume that it was actually nonsense written by you. ....

Sorry...my mistake....easy to fix.....clearly it was me quoting ME.

To be quicker with my responses I copy "reply with quotes" into a word processor, in a temp file on my desktop to track the entire conversation I even copy the quote boxes...QUOTE=skepticalbip;692984] and just switch the names. I simply forgot to switch it to QUOTE=remez;692984]. There certainly was no malicious intent just a bad proof read.

If so, then it clearly demonstrates that the words "science" and "reason" are completely foreign concepts to you. The fact that you assume and assert something to be true does not make it either true nor scientifically or reasonably arrived at.

That is a dodge on your part for two reasons…

(1) I did not assume EoG. I just provided my path from skepiticsm to Theism to provide context on the order of operations. I did assert that my reasoning therein was open for debate. Thus rendering your assertion/assumption premature.

(2) You failed to address the main issue of the post.

If you copy the quote boxes, your links end up going to the wrong places.

For example, the link in your quote above [QUOTE="skepticalbip, post: 680411, member: 2680"], points to post 680411, which wasn't made by skepticalbip at all.

The purpose of the numeric reference is to provide a unique link to a specific post, so that other users can go back and check that what you quoted is what was actually said; and/or so that they can determine the context of the quoted material.

If you don't care to link to a post (or don't know the reference number), then you can simply omit the semicolon and numeric reference:

[QUOTE="skepticalbip, post: 680411, member: 2680"] gives:

Stuff you claim skepticalbip said but with a link to an unrelated post #680411

[QUOTE=skepticalbip] gives:

Stuff you claim skepticalbip said without a link to the post he said it in

The little blue box next to the name of the poster you are quoting is a link that's meant to point to the quoted post. If it doesn't have the right reference number, then it will link somewhere completely unrelated, which is a bit pointless.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Remez, I'm going to put this to you one last time. It is entirely irrelevant what YOU state that YOU are doing or your reasons behind it. The objective facts are that (1) you have zero evidence that a god exists and therefore cannot possibly borrow that as an assumption upon which to base any other argument and (2) reasonableness must be based on reason, not on asserting or assuming something that has not (and cannot, by definition alone if nothing else; ineffable, remember?) be proved has been proved.

I can't claim it is reasonable to believe Scientology can "clear the planet" because I first assume--for the sake of argument--that Xenu exists and it is therefore possible to "clear the planet."

I can't claim that it is reasonable to believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon on gold tablets that later vanished, because I first assume--for the sake of argument--that Jesus existed and appeared in America and gave Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon on gold tablets that later vanished.

The qualifier "for the sake of argument" does not grant you license to just assert or assume ANYTHING to be true as a basis for your new argument.

That is literally saying, "For the sake of my argument, let's assume my argument has been proved true." How can it possibly be for the sake of your argument to just assume it is true? What is it then that you are asking others to contemplate for the sake of?

Your argument is: Given the fact that a god exists, it is reasonable to believe in miracles.

Yes?

The additional problem with it is, even if we were all to just accept the notion of a god existing, it is STILL not "reasonable" to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Why? Because how do any of us know that a god has the power to resurrect others from the dead?

You have evidently loaded the name "God" with special powers that you are just assuming to all also be true and/or accepted--for the sake of argument--to be true. But you are trying to argue reasonableness.

I'll define it again:

in accordance with reason; a statement offered in explanation or justification

No human being has ever been resurrected from the dead. You are claiming one has. You offer no proof of this claim, other than somebody else told you this happened and they pinky swear it did and they really really believed it and said they saw it and so that's your "evidence."

it is not evidence. Not even "bad" evidence, it's straight up NOT evidence. It is an unproved claim. Which means YOURS is an unproved claim.

So, NOW, you are trying to turn the tables on everyone else and say, "Ok, but, I'm not talking about proving anything. I'm talking about reasonableness."

Ok. Then what are your reasons for believing this unproved anecdotal claim?

Your response is to once again invoke "reasonableness." In effect: I believe it is reasonable that a being with the power to resurrect the dead, exists and therefore, the explanation for the unproved anecdotal claims that Jesus resurrected from the dead are grounded in my reasonable belief that a god with the power to resurrect exists.

Do you now see why--no matter WHAT you say in your defense of making any such assumptions/statements for the sake of argument--that such argumentation is not acceptable and cannot possibly be for the sake of any argument?

No. Matter. What.

Here, let's make it painfully clear for you. Get rid of the names "Jesus" and "God" so that you can't possibly be distracted by your beliefs.

To argue the reasonableness of believing a story of the resurrection of Bob Smith, you must first PROVE that there exists a being with the power to resurrect humans from the dead. If you can't first prove that--not merely think it, too, is "reasonable"--then how could you possibly argue reasonableness in regard to anything to do with a story about Bob Smith being resurrected from the dead?

Clear? You can't just once again assert reasonableness in believing that there exists a being with the power to resurrect humans from the dead, because then you are merely stating a tautology: it is reasonable to believe X, because it is reasonable to believe Y, because it is reasonable to believe Z, ad infinitum.

Remember, reasonableness entails explanatory power, right? Iow, the explanation for the story that someone thinks Bob Smith resurrected from the dead is because there exists a being with powers to resurrect people from the dead.

NOT, because it is reasonable to first believe that there exists a being with powers to resurrect people from the dead.

You know ALL of this to be true in regard to any other claim but your own, but again, just plug in Scientology.

Your argument, translated into Scientology terms would read:

I have concluded, based on evidence, that it is reasonable to believe that, 75 million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in spacecraft that looked just like DC-8 airplanes, stacked the people around volcanoes and then killed them all with hydrogen bombs, thereby releasing their thetans (immortal spirits) who in turn waited around inside the volcanoes for millions of years until homo sapiens sapiens evolved and then adhered to them, causing all of their spiritual harms that non-believers incorrectly call "psychological problems."

Given that fact--for the sake of argument--it is therefore reasonable that we can clear the planet of these spiritual harms through a process known as "auditing."

As you can clearly and readily see, NOTHING about any of that is reasonable, no matter the "sake of argument" qualifier.

 

[remez]

Sorry...my mistake....easy to fix.....clearly it was me quoting ME.

To be quicker with my responses I copy "reply with quotes" into a word processor, in a temp file on my desktop to track the entire conversation I even copy the quote boxes...QUOTE=skepticalbip;692984] and just switch the names. I simply forgot to switch it to QUOTE=remez;692984]. There certainly was no malicious intent just a bad proof read.

That is a dodge on your part for two reasons…

(1) I did not assume EoG. I just provided my path from skepiticsm to Theism to provide context on the order of operations. I did assert that my reasoning therein was open for debate. Thus rendering your assertion/assumption premature.

(2) You failed to address the main issue of the post.

If you copy the quote boxes, your links end up going to the wrong places.

For example, the link in your quote above [QUOTE="skepticalbip, post: 680411, member: 2680"], points to post 680411, which wasn't made by skepticalbip at all.

The purpose of the numeric reference is to provide a unique link to a specific post, so that other users can go back and check that what you quoted is what was actually said; and/or so that they can determine the context of the quoted material.

If you don't care to link to a post (or don't know the reference number), then you can simply omit the semicolon and numeric reference:

[QUOTE="skepticalbip, post: 680411, member: 2680"] gives:

Stuff you claim skepticalbip said but with a link to an unrelated post #680411

[QUOTE=skepticalbip] gives:

Stuff you claim skepticalbip said without a link to the post he said it in

The little blue box next to the name of the poster you are quoting is a link that's meant to point to the quoted post. If it doesn't have the right reference number, then it will link somewhere completely unrelated, which is a bit pointless.

Thank you.
That was really a big help.
I can still use the wp for quickness and ease, but now I can give proper attention to the number.
Sorry for not knowing that.
I'll adjust.

 

[Rhea]

Maybe remez is just arguing a tautology?
“If we assume a miracle-worker exists, then it is reasonable to assume miracles happen.” This is true, if silly.

And he can’t reasonably go on to say, “and further reasonable to assume that THIS event was one of them,” unless he’s assuming that the assumed miracle worker is making regular and frequent miracles of resurrection. Because if this is the only resurrection miracle out there, then it’s still not reasonable to assume anything about it.

 

[skepticalbip]

^^^
And, if Remez assumes the argument actually means something significant, we can also posit that if Santa (and the powers attributed to him) are real then it is reasonable to believe that he visits the homes of all children on Christmas eve and leaves toys and candies for the ones he knew were 'nice' and a lump of coal for those he knew were 'naughty'. And, of course, he knows when you are sleeping and knows when you are awake. He knows if you are good or bad so be good for goodness sake.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The real question is what to make of these tall tales. Specifically, are we dealing with a brain phenomenon and is the religious behavior nothing more than a confabulation? That would be my guess.

Look at the evidence we have. Literally billions of adult humans, some more forcefully than others, are telling us they have contact with invisible, magical, super-powered beings that they are going to live with one day. Hello! To a rational person like myself that is nothing short of astonishing, and I wish to understand how it is happening neurologically.

I believe it is more than pshchodynamic behavior, it is being enabled and maintained by a neurological condition. To me it comes across as a kind of denial such as we would see in a stroke victim with anosognosia where the patient denies they have a resulting paralysis and instead invents stories to explain how they do not have a paralysis or limitation of any kind.

Rationally speaking, god stories and miracle stories are confabulations evidencing an underlying neurological condition. I hope I live long enough to find out what the cause is for religious behavior and story invention.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The real question is what to make of these tall tales. Specifically, are we dealing with a brain phenomenon and is the religious behavior nothing more than a confabulation? That would be my guess.

Look at the evidence we have. Literally billions of adult humans, some more forcefully than others, are telling us they have contact with invisible, magical, super-powered beings that they are going to live with one day. Hello! To a rational person like myself that is nothing short of astonishing, and I wish to understand how it is happening neurologically.

I believe it is more than pshchodynamic behavior, it is being enabled and maintained by a neurological condition.

It's not all that mysterious. 99% of the people you're talking about were literally programmed to believe this (and other similar nonsense) since birth. When the only humans in your entire life--your parents--who hold your life in theirs tell you what it is you believe in over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over ....

That seems like a lot, right? It's only 214 times. There are 53 Sundays in a year. So that's only about from age 5 to 9 and not taking in account the thousands of times that the child's family and friends and community will reinforce those beliefs, such that, almost two decades before their brain is fully mature (at the 25 year mark), a child growing up in a typical American household even in this day and age of technology will likely be told what they believe in (and had it reinforced consistently by friends, family and community) some ten thousand times? Conservatively. Probably more on the order of hundred to two hundred thousand times and if you throw into the mix all of the symbols and sayings and crosses and our money and Christmasses and funerals and billboards and TV ads and pamphlets and debates and nightly reminders to pray, etc., we're probably talking on the order of the same message being drilled into any given immature brain in America--but particularly in the suburbs and rural areas and pretty much the entire South if not most of the Midwest and significant sections of every State in the Union--around a couple of million times before their brain is even approaching maturity.

Again, ALL of which is fully reinforced by just about every single person in their immediate sphere of influence and not just strangers, but the people they trust the absolute most. ALL constantly affirming and confirming that their beliefs are real and absolute and unquestionable and if they don't believe they will be eternally punished.

I mean, we know brainwashing works in a number of ways and how cognitive dissonance backs cults and we know repetitive forms of torture work to affect behavior and beliefs, etc., so it's really not all that surprising.

Hell, we have an entire government and corporate structure that continues to denigrate all science (but particularly climate change) and that is literally killing us off one by one and yet no change in beliefs.

And it's ALL brainwashing. Programming. Operant conditioning. Whatever you want to call it.

Why do you think one of the most often repeated phrases in any church in the US in particular is "Suffer the children unto me"? Or why our military training is all about breaking the individual first and foremost so that they can "build" a soldier?

Because these tactics work really really well and have worked well for thousands of years.

I'm not sure about every Priest, but I can guarantee you every single Pope to have ever existed was an atheist who fully knew that the Catholic church was always a Roman-concocted power structure to subjugate the masses far better than their military ever could.