Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How is it that those trying to debunk something keep ending up doing the opposite, giving still more evidence in favor of what they're trying to debunk?

How is it that otherwise intelligent people lose all intellectual integrity only when it comes to their pet beliefs?

 

[bilby]

How is it that those trying to debunk something keep ending up doing the opposite, giving still more evidence in favor of what they're trying to debunk?

How is it that otherwise intelligent people lose all intellectual integrity only when it comes to their pet beliefs?

Well, to be fair, the evidence on these boards is that Lumpy has very little intellectual integrity regardless of the subject matter. Whether that simply implies that he only posts here about his pet beliefs, or whether it represents his approach to the wider universe of intellectual pursuits, I do not have sufficient information to determine. But certainly there's insufficient evidence to accuse him of inconsistency in his methods.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Look -- up in the sky! It's a miracle! It's the Messiah! It's --

The GISH GALLOP!​

Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims?

It is much easier to make asinine claims than it is to refute them.

You mean like the claim that a written account reporting an event (like the Resurrection) is not evidence that the event happened? No, that's not difficult to refute. If this claim were true, then we'd have no evidence for any event of ancient history. If your claim leads to that conclusion, it pretty much refutes itself.

(Or, if you want to nitpick -- then we'd have no evidence for 99% of our ancient history events. At least 99% of all you know of ancient history is derived from written accounts reporting that the event(s) happened.)

Why won't someone give an example of a recognized historical event not known to us by means of a written account saying it happened? How is that written account not evidence? How is it not the same as an "anecdote"? How is an "anecdote" in a written account not evidence that the event happened? How do you turn a written account into NON-evidence by labeling it an "anecdote"?

Many, many of these asinine claims strung together in one post is intended to overwhelm the opposition. It is a technique used . . .

How does it "overwhelm" them? Are you saying an "asinine" claim cannot be refuted? Why can't the opposition simply refute each claim one at a time? or pick out just one claim and refute that one? and then another? Are you whining that "asinine" claims are more difficult to refute? Are you saying that in every debate, the side which is wrong has an unfair advantage, because that side is always more difficult to refute? it's destined to win every debate, because it always has more evidence and can overwhelm the other side with "asinine" claims? because "asinine" claims are so much more persuasive?

So then we can never increase our understanding by having a debate, or by having both sides present their claims, because whenever both sides are presented, it's inevitable that the wrong side will win, because its "asinine" claims are more difficult to refute?

And so, before any real debate can happen, all "asinine" claims must be screened out, and so we need a pundit to dictate ahead of time which claims are "asinine" and which ones not. So, who is that pundit dictating in advance which claims are "asinine" and thus needing to be censored before the debate can begin? How do we know it's not YOUR claims which are "asinine"?

. . . a technique used by religious apologists called "The Gish Gallop" . . .

Hi-ho Silver!

. . . named after the creationist Duane Gish who is known for using this technique.

Until it finally backfired and he got stomped by a disgruntled dinosaur who'd had enough of it. That's not me. I use the Lumpen Lawnmower technique to vanquish my opponents.

Whatever happened to the grown-up evolutionists who argued their case without whining that the other side had an unfair advantage? Is that the current argument for evolution? that Creationists must be wrong because they always have an unfair advantage in any debate and will automatically "win" because their claims are so "asinine" that they can't be refuted?

Since when did the pro-science debaters start relying on such crybaby whining? I remember an evolutionist who debated Creationists Duane Gish and Henry Morris successfully without demanding extra points to make up for the other side having an unfair advantage, or whining that they were overwhelmed by the Creationists' "asinine" claims which could not be refuted.

No, the reason Creationists "won" those debates is not that their claims were so "asinine" that they couldn't be refuted. It was because the audience was dominated by the Creationist cheerleaders, and these cannot be won over easily. Those who expect overnight conversions are deluded. So when the event is over, the "score" might still favor the Creationists, but that doesn't mean progress wasn't made toward changing some of the minds present. Or that Evolutionists are destined to lose because the side making "asinine" claims always has the advantage.

Evolutionists are just conceding defeat if they fall back on a crybaby argument that the wrong side inevitably prevails by using unfair tricks like the "Gish Gallop" or has an unfair advantage because its "asinine" claims are too difficult to refute.

The truth is that the Evolutionists overall came out ahead in those debates, long-term, despite having a psychological disadvantage. Those audiences became more educated, and more receptive to evolution as a possibility. And many believers have gradually modified their belief to allow a combination of evolution science along with their traditional creationist belief.

 

[bilby]

You mean like the claim that a written account reporting an event (like the Resurrection) is not evidence that the event happened? No, that's not difficult to refute. If this claim were true, then we'd have no evidence for any event of ancient history.

archaeology
/ˌɑːkɪˈɒlədʒi/

noun

the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Name another ancient miracle account which meets similar critical standards for evidence as that of Jesus in the Gospels.

Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims?

He evidently has no choice, which is endlessly ironic, because the whole point of a religion is that you . . .

"the whole point of a religion"? Right off you know that whatever's coming will be pablum puke wackadoodle babble baloney bubble-brain bullshit.

. . . is that you believe on faith in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

All the evidence is that Jesus performed miracle acts, healing the sick and raising the dead, and rising from the dead himself. The only evidence contrary to this is the dogma that no miracle event can ever happen, regardless of any evidence.

There's a strong case for the miracles of Jesus when all the existing evidence about it says that it happened and the only evidence against it is an ideological premise that ALL miracle claims have to be false no matter what the facts are. It's the DISbelief in the Jesus miracles which requires "faith in spite of the evidence to the contrary."

All the written record we have says it happened, with nothing saying otherwise. This is the kind of evidence we have for all our known ancient history -- i.e., written accounts from the time saying that the events happened. There's virtually no other evidence for what happened outside the written accounts from the time.

Clearly he's having a crisis of faith, or else he wouldn't be torturing logic so blatantly and insisting on standards that he knows he would never accept for any other religion (like Mormonism) or anything really.

The standards, or criteria, are at least 2 sources, from near the time of the alleged miracle event, describing a miracle done at a public location, witnessed by non-disciples as well as disciples; and if it's a healing miracle, some of the ones healed must be non-disciples, or someone not under the spell of the charismatic guru over a long time period.

Like the following account (Mark ch. 3):

1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here." 4 And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'di-ans against him, how to destroy him.

A legitimate claim of someone doing miracle acts should include an example like the above, i.e., some description of the event, plus there should be more than only 2 or 3 such claimed miracle events involving the reported miracle-worker.

Description of the event, in a written source near the time, with some non-disciples present, rather than just disciples only.

The phrase "standards that he knows he would never accept for any other religion" makes no sense if you cannot name another "religion" making similar claims and cite the evidence, report, testimony, etc. from that "religion" making the claims. Though you can name 100 (or 1000) other "religions" in a laundry list, it's all babble until you cite the source, the text, the written report, like the above report in Mark 3:1-6, describing the alleged event.

So can you go beyond this babble and quote an account which gives us the report or "similar claim"? Why don't you dig out a reported miracle event from the written accounts about Joseph Smith, or other reported miracle-worker, making "similar claims" if there are any. Some such accounts do exist. But they are laughable by comparison, and you would be embarrassed to quote them here to make your case.

We must rule out claims coming from the disciples only, or witnessed only by them, as these believers are likely to be under the influence of the guru's charisma, promoting the same religious traditions of the guru. This includes the victim allegedly healed by the guru, like the Asclepius worshipers who sought healing from Asclepius priests. Or like modern-day believers healed by evangelists in the name of Jesus. In these cases it's easy to explain how the miracle healing is believed and reported, even though it didn't really happen. The guru's charismatic power, and the power of the ancient traditions are sufficient to cause the miracle claims to be made, regardless what really happened. But this cannot explain the miracle healings of Jesus in the Gospels, whose acts were witnessed by non-disciples, and who didn't rely on an ancient healing deity or tradition or rites.

All it takes to write a myth is the first time you write a myth.

But it takes much more than this in order for people in large numbers to believe the myth. And 2000 years ago it also required that the writing be copied, in order for the myth to be known to future generations. So far no one has explained how we have these written reports, of the Jesus miracle acts, if these did not really happen. It took much more than just one storyteller writing the "myth" for others to believe. People did NOT believe such stories 2000 years ago, if it was invented by one storyteller, or one mythmaker. You can't name an example where such a story, written by one storyteller, was believed by large numbers. Nor an example where 4 (5) writers reported the same miracle event myth.

Many conditions were required in order for us to have these written accounts today, reporting this one event, or series of miracle events, from multiple sources near the time, in the 1st century. Not just one writer "the first time" writing it. If it was no more than that, we'd know nothing of it today, because that one writing would have been ignored and would have perished, as 99% of all writings perished.

It's not like Stephen King novels only turn into fiction after twenty years.

No such writer as Stephen King was possible 2000 years ago. The Gospel accounts cannot possibly be a product of any writer of this kind. You have to find a better analogy than this. You can't keep ignoring that the written accounts in question are 2000 years old and report events from 2000 years ago. If your bias forces you to ignore this, then you're not taking any of this seriously. It's obvious that you think it's all rubbish and have no interest in giving it any serious thought.

They're fiction the second his pen hits paper.

And 2000 years ago they would have perished completely, leaving no trace. Perhaps there were a few writers who wrote such stories which perished. That's not relevant to our discussion, which is about written accounts making claims which circulated widely, orally also, and written accounts confirmed in other sources of the time, and copied and copied and copied because they were recognized as being important. And for this reason they have survived.

You've not explained how this was possible if those miracle events never happened but were just invented by storytellers like Stephen King.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You mean like the claim that a written account reporting an event (like the Resurrection) is not evidence that the event happened? No, that's not difficult to refute. If this claim were true, then we'd have no evidence for any event of ancient history.

archaeology

Yeah, that's not a 'refute' as much as an attempt at hostage-taking.
Saying 'if my anonymous undated uncorroborated outrageous claim isn't accepted as evidence, i won't let your accumulated history be accepted, either!'
Might work if no historian had anything better than 'some guy, somewwhen said this is what happened...so we believe him.'
But Lumpy keeps ignoring how history actually works.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You mean like the claim that a written account reporting an event (like the Resurrection) is not evidence that the event happened? No, that's not difficult to refute.

Then why can't you?

If this claim were true, then we'd have no evidence for any event of ancient history.

That's not a refutation, that's just a rather blatant fallacy. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam.

We have no evidence, for example, of Atlantis. We have no evidence of "sirens" singing sailors to their deaths or of an "odyssey" undertaken by a guy named Odysseus, or of a "Jason" and his crew of Argonauts, who set out on a quest for a magical golden fleece by order of King Pelias, in order to place Jason rightfully on the throne of Iolcus in Thessaly, through the help of a goddess named Medea. We have no evidence of a King Arthur or of any Knights of a Round Table or a magical sword named Excalibur. We have no evidence of a giant lumberjack named Paul Bunyan or his giant blue Ox.

So you constantly repeating this sophistry doesn't address the fact that an anecdotal claim (particularly a third party recounting of someone else's anecdotal claim) IS. NOT. EVIDENCE.

I don't mean it's bad evidence or evidence that I just won't accept. IT IS NOT EVIDENCE. Full stop.

An anecdotal claim cannot evidence the subject of the claim; it can only evidence the fact that someone had an experience that they cannot readily or easily explain. That's it. That is the full extent of an anecdotal claim.

Again, you know this. You do not EVER apply this sophistry toward any other such claim. You do not accept that Mormonism is true, for example; or that Joseph Smith was given gold tablets, no less, directly from an angel of the Lord:

According to Latter Day Saint belief, the golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th-century literature, the golden bible)[1] are the source from which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon, a sacred text of the faith.[2] Some witnesses described the plates as weighing from 30 to 60 pounds (14 to 27 kg),[3] golden in color, and composed of thin metallic pages engraved on both sides and bound with three D-shaped rings.[4]

Smith said that he found the plates on September 22, 1823 on a hill, near his home in Manchester, New York, after the angel Moroni directed him to a buried stone box. He said that the angel prevented him from taking the plates but instructed him to return to the same location in a year. He returned to that site every year, but it was not until September 1827 that he recovered the plates on his fourth annual attempt to retrieve them. He returned home with a heavy object wrapped in a frock, which he then put in a box. He allowed others to heft the box but said that the angel had forbidden him to show the plates to anyone until they had been translated from their original "reformed Egyptian" language. Smith dictated the text of the Book of Mormon, claiming that it was a translation of the plates. The only eyewitnesses to the process said Smith translated the plates, not by looking at them, but by looking at a seer stone in the bottom of his hat.[5] Smith published the translation in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.

Smith eventually obtained testimonies from 11 men who said that they had seen the plates, known as the Book of Mormon witnesses.[6] After the translation was complete, Smith said that he returned the plates to the angel Moroni, so they could never be examined.

So here's your problem. For your fallacy to be true, it necessarily must mean that Mormonism is likewise true. There were 11 witnesses at the time of the event who all attest to the fact that the plates were real and that Smith translated them, etc.

These are not witnesses that lived for another fifty or seventy years and then wrote down their recollections. These are accounts taken that very year, evidently, and, in at least one case (Martin Harris), repeatedly attested to in the exact same manner as Paul did:

[Martin] Harris continued to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon even when he was estranged from the church, at least during the early years of the movement. He "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience." Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2: 255. The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like." Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867) p. 71 in EMD, 3: 122. John H. Gilbert was the typesetter for most of the book, and he said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.'" John H. Gilbert, "Memorandum," 8 September 1892, in EMD, 2: 548. Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes." Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22. In 1838, Harris told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination." Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838 in EMD, 2: 291. A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." Reuben P. Harmon statement, c. 1885, in EMD, 2: 385.

So, again, if all Paul needed to do was tell his story, then Martin Harris is to be believed and Mormonism is the only true religion.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is, the gospels and Acts give 5 very different version of the resurrection. Obviously, they cannot be true and are thus, not history. It is that simple. Thus the supposed miracle are not trustworthy. John claims the water to wine at Cana was the first miracle. This 'miracle' is absent from the synoptic gospels. The resurrection of Lazarus in John is absent from the synoptics. The infant narratives of Luke and Matthew contradict each other. This is all bad mythology and not history. Written by unknown and untrustworthy liars.

And as a final parting shot, the whole Jesus myth is built on the promise that God exists. A rather doubtful proposition. A proposition that is in final analysis, incoherent, self contradicting, and thus improbable to a high degree.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

To refute the Jesus miracles, you have to offer more than just the "PEOPLE MAKE UP SHIT" outburst.

A savant suddenly knows how to play piano without ever having had any lessons or practicing or learning how to play?

No. It's amazing that Avett Maness was able to play "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" when he was only 11 months old. I'd be interested in seeing a video of that since it's dead certain mom should have had access to smart phones with which to bolster this claim. Alas, all we seem to have is a picture. But if you'll do some research on the subject you'll quickly see that young Avett learned to play other, more sophisticated music as time went by. He did not drag himself up to the piano at first and start playing Bohemian Rhapsody. We have no idea how much he had observed from others on his way to that first claimed recital in front of mom. Had someone else held the little guy while playing those same notes so he could watch how it was done? We don't know and he probably lacks the ability to recall. One thing is for sure: Just like every other incredible thing that we've ever found the answer to how it happens or happened, there is a perfectly rational explanation for this that does not require any intervention from any god or gods.

There are many cases which have never been explained, and which defy known science.

Here it's just a question of what the facts are. There are many reported cases of savants who suddenly acquired an ability to play piano or to do math and other complicated skills. It's not about "god or gods" or "intervention" etc. It's just a question of whether there have been cases, examples, of something which cannot be explained by our known science, and seem to contradict normal experience.

There are several such reported cases. Here's another example:

https://uproxx.com/life/derek-amato-musical-savant/
Prior to the accident, Amato had absolutely no musical training or ability. When he woke up, he had the ability to play music with the proficiency of a trained professional. Not normal in the least.

This mentions not only a pianist who suddenly acquired his ability (following a head injury), but refers to other cases also, such as an ability to perform complicated math problems, with no learning or training.

There are several such accounts. Have these been debunked by the Amazing Randi today, or other debunker who exposes fraudulent claims of the paranormal? If they are fraudulent, they definitely could be debunked, by investigation into the facts. But they have not been debunked.

Here's a skeptic/debunker (Tim Worstall) who doubts a claim by Jason Padgett who suddenly learned math after getting punched in the head:

https://pando.com/2014/04/22/what-worries-me-about-the-jason-padgett-story/
Jason Padgett is a "sudden savant" who sees elaborate geometric shapes in every day objects and has the ability to recreate them by hand.

Among his drawings of fractals, the repeating geometric patterns which are the building blocks of everything in the known universe, is a visualisation of Hawking radiation, the substance emitted from a micro black hole, which took him nine months to create.

Worstall is suspicious of Padgett because of some psychic-type claims he makes, saying there are these hidden talents latent in all of us, etc., sounding like a motivation/positive thinking theorizer of some kind. This is a legitimate criticism, and it's proper to investigate these claims to see if the sudden genius is really doing some kind of fraudulent game.

But there are so many of these savant claims which have not been debunked, even though they could be if they are fraudulent, so that it's unlikely that they are really fraudulent. And even if a few similar claims are fraudulent, there seems to be a recognition that others are legitimate. It appears that these documented cases are investigated by the publishers or news outlets which present them, and are not believed without first investigating them.

Worstall recognizes a certain number of legitimate documented cases, which he says number only 40:

Experts say there are only about 40 people with acquired *savant syndrome in the world. Padgett tells us of his former goof status by pointing out that all he liked to do was hang out and have a drink with his friends at the bar. And as someone who insists that the existence of beer proves that God loves us and wants us to be happy I'm not all that sure that being turned into a savant is an advance on this position, blow to the head or not.

So even though Worstall is a skeptic about this one case, he admits at least the 40 cases recognized by "experts" as being legitimate. So it appears that this is not fraud, which could be debunked by The Amazing Randi, etc., but that these unusual savant cases really do exist, and these are cases of someone who acquired a highly difficult skill without any learning or training. Such cases are contrary to our common experience and observation, and there is no scientific explanation for them.

This shows that there are certain events, or certain abilities, which are unexplainable with our current science, and which contradict our common experience and observation. We have no way to identify what abilities go into this category and which do not. We have some reported cases of healing miracles, for which there is usually no evidence. But in the case of Rasputin the Mad Monk there is some documented evidence, leaving open unanswered questions, and in the case of Jesus there is evidence of an extreme ability to perform "miracle" (unexplainable) cures, so that it's reasonable to believe it based on the evidence, and on the fact that there are documented cases of abilities people have which defy common experience and current known science.

It's the evidence which tells us what happens, i.e., the reported observations or experiences of those who witnessed it, which overrides the ideological dogma that miracle events can never happen. The common sense rule that miracles can never happen can take priority in 99% of cases, perhaps, because the evidence is lacking, but where there is evidence, then the miracle claim becomes a reasonable possibility.

Let me rephrase that:

Humanity has a rich history of solving mysteries. Uncovering the mechanisms of things that once were only explainable as "God did it." Not once in the history of all that discovery has the actual answer been "God did it."

Yes this has been the actual answer in practice. In legal cases the phrase "act of God" is used for actual cases of events. It's used in insurance cases, where no one is at fault. Now if you want to rephrase it again, perhaps you can make an intelligent point. But to say not once ever was "God did it" the actual answer is false. It is recognized in law that "God did it" is sometimes the answer.

The evidence is that 2000 years ago Jesus "did it" in some cases, i.e., performing miracle acts in which persons were healed suddenly, contrary to normal experience and known science.

Not once.

Many times. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. In the case of reported miracles, you might say none has ever ended up with an agreement that "God did it" is the explanation. Rather, there are cases where it's just not known what happened. Or there's no agreement about what happened, and no one has an explanation accepted by all the others.

"God" has the most impressive ongoing "0-fer" in the history of 0-fers, and the misses just keep on coming. I think it's really sad that in this modern age and with the tiniest nooks and crannies into which the God of the Gaps has had to recede, that there are people who apparently will never give up.

And some will never give up trying to debunk the Jesus miracle stories in the Gospels. This message board has at least 100 attempts, which have all failed. Out of 100, as a round figure, the batting average here is 0-fer 100. Keep trying.

Or -- I've even helped you out, with the example of the Elisha miracle story (II Kings 4:42-44) which resembles the Jesus fish-and-loaves story, and which you could claim is the real origin of the later multiplying-the-loaves miracle story. You can use this argument, for debunking, and raise your average to 1-fer-100. But no other Jesus miracle story has any such resemblance to an earlier legend. You have to do better than a batting average of .010 in order to show a pattern of explaining what caused the Jesus miracle claims.

And there is a perfectly rational explanation for the Jesus myths: People made it up.

That's the universal miracle-claim debunker. Or debunker for ANY claim anyone makes that you want not to be true.

With this argument, you can refute the Moon Landing, the 9-11 attack, the JFK assassination, etc. -- whatever claim you wish to be false. You can always refute anyone who claims anything you don't like, with the retort: People made it up. And bingo! you have just refuted absolutely anything ever claimed by anyone anywhere at anytime.

Why don't you start a new religious cult based on the chant, "People made it up! People made it up! People made it up!" You don't need to prove it. Just keep repeating it over and over, and many will believe it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But it takes much more than this in order for people in large numbers to believe the myth. And 2000 years ago it also required that the writing be copied, in order for the myth to be known to future generations. So far no one has explained how we have these written reports, of the Jesus miracle acts, if these did not really happen. It took much more than just one storyteller writing the "myth" for others to believe. People did NOT believe such stories 2000 years ago, if it was invented by one storyteller, or one mythmaker. You can't name an example where such a story, written by one storyteller, was believed by large numbers. Nor an example where 4 (5) writers reported the same miracle event myth.

And this is why Lumpenproletariat is a Mormon.

 

[abaddon]

... Not once in the history of all that discovery has the actual answer been "God did it."

Yes this has been the actual answer in practice. In legal cases the phrase "act of God" is used for actual cases of events. It's used in insurance cases, where no one is at fault. Now if you want to rephrase it again, perhaps you can make an intelligent point. But to say not once ever was "God did it" the actual answer is false. It is recognized in law that "God did it" is sometimes the answer.

The evidence is that 2000 years ago Jesus "did it" in some cases, i.e., performing miracle acts in which persons were healed suddenly, contrary to normal experience and known science.

Not once.

Many times. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. In the case of reported miracles, you might say none has ever ended up with an agreement that "God did it" is the explanation. Rather, there are cases where it's just not known what happened. Or there's no agreement about what happened, and no one has an explanation accepted by all the others.

The turn-of-phrase "act of God" means the cases were explained by nature's randomness.

What is an "act of god"?

The term "act of god" refers to natural phenomena such as lightning strikes, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes - large-scale, freak weather occurrences.

The phrase is usually used by insurance companies, and in other legal circles, to describe events that couldn’t have been predicted or prevented by any reasonable measures.

~ from here: https://www.confused.com/home-insurance/guides/confused-com-explain-acts-of-god-in-home-insurance

The writer notes that "the definition of an act of god changes between insurers" and advises that if the "vague wording" is confusing to you, you should "request clarification from your insurer". Else, if you figure an "act of God' has happened to you and that it literally means "God did it", then you might consider taking action against the perpetrator:

 

[bilby]

Yes this has been the actual answer in practice. In legal cases the phrase "act of God" is used for actual cases of events. It's used in insurance cases, where no one is at fault. Now if you want to rephrase it again, perhaps you can make an intelligent point. But to say not once ever was "God did it" the actual answer is false. It is recognized in law that "God did it" is sometimes the answer.

The evidence is that 2000 years ago Jesus "did it" in some cases, i.e., performing miracle acts in which persons were healed suddenly, contrary to normal experience and known science.



Many times. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. In the case of reported miracles, you might say none has ever ended up with an agreement that "God did it" is the explanation. Rather, there are cases where it's just not known what happened. Or there's no agreement about what happened, and no one has an explanation accepted by all the others.

The turn-of-phrase "act of God" means the cases were explained by nature's randomness.

What is an "act of god"?

The term "act of god" refers to natural phenomena such as lightning strikes, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes - large-scale, freak weather occurrences.

The phrase is usually used by insurance companies, and in other legal circles, to describe events that couldn’t have been predicted or prevented by any reasonable measures.

~ from here: https://www.confused.com/home-insurance/guides/confused-com-explain-acts-of-god-in-home-insurance

The writer notes that "the definition of an act of god changes between insurers" and advises that if the "vague wording" is confusing to you, you should "request clarification from your insurer". Else, if you figure an "act of God' has happened to you, you might consider taking legal action against the perp:
View attachment 22893

Billy Connolly and Colin Friels starred in The Man who Sued God. It was never explained how Scottish brothers who moved to Australia as young men ended up with one having a Glasgow accent, while the other's accent was from Edinburgh. It was probably a miracle.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That argument was brought to you by the stupid loophole league of apologists.

The writer notes that "the definition of an act of god changes between insurers" and advises that if the "vague wording" is confusing to you, you should "request clarification from your insurer".

When i first got close to nuclear weapons, there was a safety standard that bore on all weapon design, operation, maintenance and security that directed positive measures to prevent weapons involved in an accident from producing a nuclear yield.
In the 40 years since, they have updated that to include 'accidents or incidents' and the phrase 'in all normal and credible abnormal environments.'
I have never seen the official DoD list of credible abnormal environments, but i would be damned certain that it does not include 'God did it.'
Even at our weirdest bullshit hypothetical scenario (Say there's a hydraulic problem that opens the missile hatch whike underway, sowe HAVE to surface, and it's during a thunderstorm... In the Bermuda Triangle... On Friday the 13th...) we never asked the weapons officer if God's direct action would be an acceptable finding for the inqwiry board. He'd have disqualified us.

 

[Atheos]

Wow. Argument by insurance terminology.

Lumpenproletariat, I can't believe this has to be said, but evidently it does. "Act of God" is a vestigial term that continues to be used in insurance policies, but it does not imply that people don't know how the damage occurred or that the damage itself was effected by miraculous agents. The very point I was trying to make (that not once has it ever been discovered that 'God did it') is actually strengthened by this very illustration you use.

There was a time long ago when people believed that lightning, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., were acts of god. Hundreds of years ago insurance companies used that conventional thought in their policies. Since that time science has put together the models whereby all these things happen. In each case it turned out that all of these were perfectly natural events, requiring no conscience decision on the part of some omnipotent sky-daddy. As a result modern insurance policies are gravitating towards the term "natural disaster" rather than Act of God.

I will admit that there are a great many things we still do not understand fully. But "God" has had to scurry into ever decreasing crevices, dark places not yet illuminated by the inexorable march of discovery. God's 0-fer is still perfect. Not once has God ever made contact with the ball, so to speak.

You also keep bringing up these appeals to savants and equating them with miracles.

A math-savant or a music-savant or an anything savant is an anomaly to be sure. But it's not a miracle. Consider eyesight and visual memory: Millions of animal species on this planet share the brain power to do parallel processing on hundreds of thousands of nerve impulses to resolve an image in our brains. We can then store mental copies of these images and reproduce them later for nearly instantaneous comparison so when we see a person tomorrow we know it's the same person even if they have changed their clothes, combed their hair differently or put on eyeglasses. So much for Superman's disguise.

My point is that's a much more impressive feat than being able to do math calculations or play music. The very earliest CPUs mankind ever produced could do math calculations very quickly and accurately. They could also control MIDI equipment and faithfully replicate musical notes and tempo effortlessly. But it took decades of exponential growth to reach a point where image and voice recognition became feasible. And just about all of us who have cussed out Google, Alexa, Cortana or Siri know these technologies still have a way to go to reach human levels. But they're getting there scarily fast.

For this reason your efforts at pointing out "miracles" has the opposite effect. The reason brains didn't evolve to do complex math quickly is precisely because complex math skills conveyed absolutely no survival advantage. On the other hand the ability to distinguish a predator from prey is exactly the sort of thing that conveyed a strong survival advantage. Advantage Evolution Theory, because this is exactly what has driven the evolutionary process for billions of years. Read up on Selection Pressure if you care to become more familiar with the process.

I would theorize that the reason math whiz's are so rare is because if there is an adaptation that grants this capability there is probably some other (more common) trait that was attenuated. The individual might be able to calculate square roots to a precision of 15 digits almost instantly but not be able to pick up on the social clues that make one adept at social interaction. Simply put, if the individual can't get laid they can't pass those wicked math skills to the next generation. For good or bad, nature favors the jock over the nerd. I'm a nerd, by the way.

 

[bilby]

Wow. Argument by insurance terminology.

Lumpenproletariat, I can't believe this has to be said, but evidently it does. "Act of God" is a vestigial term that continues to be used in insurance policies, but it does not imply that people don't know how the damage occurred or that the damage itself was effected by miraculous agents. The very point I was trying to make (that not once has it ever been discovered that 'God did it') is actually strengthened by this very illustration you use.

There was a time long ago when people believed that lightning, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., were acts of god. Hundreds of years ago insurance companies used that conventional thought in their policies. Since that time science has put together the models whereby all these things happen. In each case it turned out that all of these were perfectly natural events, requiring no conscience decision on the part of some omnipotent sky-daddy. As a result modern insurance policies are gravitating towards the term "natural disaster" rather than Act of God.

I will admit that there are a great many things we still do not understand fully. But "God" has had to scurry into ever decreasing crevices, dark places not yet illuminated by the inexorable march of discovery. God's 0-fer is still perfect. Not once has God ever made contact with the ball, so to speak.

You also keep bringing up these appeals to savants and equating them with miracles.

A math-savant or a music-savant or an anything savant is an anomaly to be sure. But it's not a miracle. Consider eyesight and visual memory: Millions of animal species on this planet share the brain power to do parallel processing on hundreds of thousands of nerve impulses to resolve an image in our brains. We can then store mental copies of these images and reproduce them later for nearly instantaneous comparison so when we see a person tomorrow we know it's the same person even if they have changed their clothes, combed their hair differently or put on eyeglasses. So much for Superman's disguise.

My point is that's a much more impressive feat than being able to do math calculations or play music. The very earliest CPUs mankind ever produced could do math calculations very quickly and accurately. They could also control MIDI equipment and faithfully replicate musical notes and tempo effortlessly. But it took decades of exponential growth to reach a point where image and voice recognition became feasible. And just about all of us who have cussed out Google, Alexa, Cortana or Siri know these technologies still have a way to go to reach human levels. But they're getting there scarily fast.

For this reason your efforts at pointing out "miracles" has the opposite effect. The reason brains didn't evolve to do complex math quickly is precisely because complex math skills conveyed absolutely no survival advantage. On the other hand the ability to distinguish a predator from prey is exactly the sort of thing that conveyed a strong survival advantage. Advantage Evolution Theory, because this is exactly what has driven the evolutionary process for billions of years. Read up on Selection Pressure if you care to become more familiar with the process.

I would theorize that the reason math whiz's are so rare is because if there is an adaptation that grants this capability there is probably some other (more common) trait that was attenuated. The individual might be able to calculate square roots to a precision of 15 digits almost instantly but not be able to pick up on the social clues that make one adept at social interaction. Simply put, if the individual can't get laid they can't pass those wicked math skills to the next generation. For good or bad, nature favors the jock over the nerd. I'm a nerd, by the way.

Nature used to favour the jock over the nerd.

But we have changed our environment. City dwelling humans who use lots of technology, but rarely go hunting or have to settle disputes with their fists, are a very new phenomenon, having only really existed for three or four generations. That's a tiny amount of time in evolutionary terms - but if this environment continues to become the most common niche in which humans thrive, things will look very different in a few tens of thousands of years.

Asperger's syndrome was a rare and detrimental trait until very recently, but it's rapidly becoming a survival advantage. Lots of traits that used to be detrimental are no longer an issue, and some are now positively beneficial.

The very recent ability to travel long distances is also likely to have a huge impact on our future evolution, as it allows far more mixing of the gene pool - which is usually a good thing for a population's chances of avoiding extinction. On the other hand, it's also a good thing for populations we don't necessarily want to see thriving, such as influenza viruses.

As a wise man once observed, the STEM fields have a far higher proportion of Asperger's Syndrome than other areas of human endeavour - which implies that autism causes vaccines.

 

[rousseau]

Wow. Argument by insurance terminology.

Lumpenproletariat, I can't believe this has to be said, but evidently it does. "Act of God" is a vestigial term that continues to be used in insurance policies, but it does not imply that people don't know how the damage occurred or that the damage itself was effected by miraculous agents. The very point I was trying to make (that not once has it ever been discovered that 'God did it') is actually strengthened by this very illustration you use.

There was a time long ago when people believed that lightning, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., were acts of god. Hundreds of years ago insurance companies used that conventional thought in their policies. Since that time science has put together the models whereby all these things happen. In each case it turned out that all of these were perfectly natural events, requiring no conscience decision on the part of some omnipotent sky-daddy. As a result modern insurance policies are gravitating towards the term "natural disaster" rather than Act of God.

I will admit that there are a great many things we still do not understand fully. But "God" has had to scurry into ever decreasing crevices, dark places not yet illuminated by the inexorable march of discovery. God's 0-fer is still perfect. Not once has God ever made contact with the ball, so to speak.

You also keep bringing up these appeals to savants and equating them with miracles.

A math-savant or a music-savant or an anything savant is an anomaly to be sure. But it's not a miracle. Consider eyesight and visual memory: Millions of animal species on this planet share the brain power to do parallel processing on hundreds of thousands of nerve impulses to resolve an image in our brains. We can then store mental copies of these images and reproduce them later for nearly instantaneous comparison so when we see a person tomorrow we know it's the same person even if they have changed their clothes, combed their hair differently or put on eyeglasses. So much for Superman's disguise.

My point is that's a much more impressive feat than being able to do math calculations or play music. The very earliest CPUs mankind ever produced could do math calculations very quickly and accurately. They could also control MIDI equipment and faithfully replicate musical notes and tempo effortlessly. But it took decades of exponential growth to reach a point where image and voice recognition became feasible. And just about all of us who have cussed out Google, Alexa, Cortana or Siri know these technologies still have a way to go to reach human levels. But they're getting there scarily fast.

For this reason your efforts at pointing out "miracles" has the opposite effect. The reason brains didn't evolve to do complex math quickly is precisely because complex math skills conveyed absolutely no survival advantage. On the other hand the ability to distinguish a predator from prey is exactly the sort of thing that conveyed a strong survival advantage. Advantage Evolution Theory, because this is exactly what has driven the evolutionary process for billions of years. Read up on Selection Pressure if you care to become more familiar with the process.

I would theorize that the reason math whiz's are so rare is because if there is an adaptation that grants this capability there is probably some other (more common) trait that was attenuated. The individual might be able to calculate square roots to a precision of 15 digits almost instantly but not be able to pick up on the social clues that make one adept at social interaction. Simply put, if the individual can't get laid they can't pass those wicked math skills to the next generation. For good or bad, nature favors the jock over the nerd. I'm a nerd, by the way.

Nature used to favour the jock over the nerd.

But we have changed our environment. City dwelling humans who use lots of technology, but rarely go hunting or have to settle disputes with their fists, are a very new phenomenon, having only really existed for three or four generations. That's a tiny amount of time in evolutionary terms - but if this environment continues to become the most common niche in which humans thrive, things will look very different in a few tens of thousands of years.

Asperger's syndrome was a rare and detrimental trait until very recently, but it's rapidly becoming a survival advantage. Lots of traits that used to be detrimental are no longer an issue, and some are now positively beneficial.

The very recent ability to travel long distances is also likely to have a huge impact on our future evolution, as it allows far more mixing of the gene pool - which is usually a good thing for a population's chances of avoiding extinction. On the other hand, it's also a good thing for populations we don't necessarily want to see thriving, such as influenza viruses.

As a wise man once observed, the STEM fields have a far higher proportion of Asperger's Syndrome than other areas of human endeavour - which implies that autism causes vaccines.

I think about this sometimes and definitely think there's something to it, although a complete picture would add in those adept in social positions - whether that's some form of management / leadership role, or literally some kind of social work (healthcare, PSW, ECE etc).

People without either strong logic or social skills are likely going to have a hard time these days. Those things can be somewhat mutually exclusive, but I'd say there are two (major) distinct niches.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do you have to MAKE UP SHIT in order to prove that Jesus did not do miracles?

What is it with Christians and making up shit?

The only somewhat contemporaneous account of Jesus comes from Paul, who apparently . . .

There are virtually NO "contemporaneous" accounts of any ancient historical figure -- a slight presentation of Socrates from a contemporary, and possibly 1 or 2 other examples. But these are the rare exceptions and not the best accounts of the character presented. The norm is at least 100 years separation between the author and the historical figure presented. Plutarch's Lives are all more than 100 years separate from Plutarch, and Suetonius is separated from most of his "Twelve Caesars" by more than 50 years (2 of them a little less). So, none of the famous biographies are cases of "contemporaneous" accounts.

. . . who apparently received telepathic communications from a cosmic angel named Jesus.

translation: Paul's theological (or christological) writing, which gives no historical/biographical information. But his writings also contain 2 or 3 biographical elements, which place Jesus into earth history. That there's so little biographical content doesn't change the fact that his Jesus had to be an historical figure, along with the cosmic part.

Paul does not place Jesus on Earth or ascribe any earthly deeds to him.

Why do you have to "make up shit" of your own in order to make your point?

He says that Jesus was "handed over" on the night when he ate and drank with the disciples for the last time.

He says Jesus had a brother, James, who was a human in Jerusalem, and that Jesus had direct contact with him and also Peter, from "the churches of Judea that are in Christ" (Gal. 1:22). He says Jesus was buried and raised and appeared bodily to these and to several others (1 Corinthians 15:4-7). And he says Jesus was crucified by "the rulers of this age" (1 Cor. 2:8). The term for "rulers" (archon/archontes (pl.)) always means either earthly rulers in history or cosmic rulers who are performing their acts in earth history. No exceptions. These "rulers" or archons can do nothing other than acts involving earth history events.

Then comes Mark, dating to at least 40 years after Jesus, possibly much later, who does a complete 180 from Paul and creates a story of Jesus as a flesh and blood human.

No, Paul's Jesus was also a flesh-and-blood human, though Paul emphasizes the cosmic risen Christ. How could Paul's Jesus not have been a flesh-and-blood human if he had a brother who was flesh and blood, and was crucified by earthly rulers and had been seen bodily by humans?

Just because Paul dwells on the cosmic Christ does not mean this Christ was not also an earthly human in history, as Paul describes him. The cosmic Christ writings in Paul do not erase the earthly Christ who is also there in Paul's text. Just because the latter references are few, in Paul, does not somehow erase his Christ as an earthly human in history.

For your theory to be correct, you have to arbitrarily expunge Galatians 1 and 2 from Paul's writings, and also 1 Corinthians 2 and 15. Why can't you make your point without censoring texts you don't like? There is no contradiction between the historical earthly Christ and the cosmic Risen Christ. In fact, neither makes any sense without being in combination with the other.

What you could claim is that Paul was wrong in his conjectures or theology about the cosmic Christ. I.e., that he "made up shit" about Christ having the cosmic elements, ascending to Heaven etc. And even if some of his interpretations or christology are incorrect, that doesn't negate the earthly Christ whom he elevated to the cosmic status. On the contrary, there had to be the earthly Christ first, as the beginning or starting point for his theologizing, and this earthly Christ must have been the same one known by James and Peter etc., who are connected by Paul to Christ earlier than the time he had his own visions.

Serious scholars who are not fundamentalists agree that the stories in Mark are likely meant as parables, not as descriptions of historical events.

No, scholars do not agree that Herod Antipas was a parable invented by Mark. Or John the Baptist, who is mentioned by Josephus. Or is it your claim that Josephus also wrote only parables, and that all literature from the 1st century is only parables?

It's not true that scholars dismiss everything in Mark as "parables." Rather, some parts of this and the other gospels are put in a doubtful category, with much disagreement among scholars on the meaning and credibility. The accounts contain a mixture of fact and fiction, like virtually ALL the ancient literature, and there is no doctrine imposed onto the scholars dictating which part is the fact and which is the fiction.

E.g., it is ludicrous to say that the following is meant as a parable:

Mark 14:50-52 -- And they all forsook him, and fled. And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

This and other passages make no sense as "parable" or anything other than a narration of events they thought happened. And the miracle stories cannot be dismissed as "parable" except as dictated by your ideological premise that those events cannot really have happened. That dogma, that they could not have happened, is the only basis for relegating them to the "parable" category. There is nothing scholarly about calling them "parable" other than a dogmatic insistence that they have to be fiction, based on instinct, and on the ideology that there can be no miracle events, regardless of evidence.

Mark is pretty much all fiction, and it is impossible to determine any historical elements in this gospel.

Repeating these lies doesn't make it so. John the Baptist and Herod Antipas were historical figures. It's OK to say there is some fiction in Mark, as there is in most or all the ancient writings. But extremist pronouncements like "impossible to determine any historical elements" and "all fiction" put you into the nutcase wacko category.

The legitimate non-wacko scholarly task is to try to distinguish the factual element from the fictional, recognizing that there are both elements.

Turning Jesus into a flesh and blood human complete with a resume of made-up miracle claims is necessary to win over the largely unwashed masses, . . .

No, there is no evidence that any such resumé was ever necessary in order to win over the masses. There's no example of any such miracle claims being accepted by the masses, or winning them over. You can't name one example of it. The only miracle claims accepted by the masses were traditions associated with the ancient deities and heroes, not that of a recent miracle-worker.

There are no examples of miracle-workers in any of the ancient religious cults other than that of ancient figures like Apollo and Hercules and other long-recognized legends. There were no beliefs in any recent historical person having performed miracle acts which gained any acceptance. The only miracle claims accepted were the long-established ancient legends, recognized in popular tradition by the masses. There is nothing from their recent history about miracle-workers who showed up from somewhere, coming to town and drawing crowds of peasants or villagers wanting to be healed. Such alleged miracle-worker claims were rejected by the masses and were treated with contempt by virtually everyone. Anyone making such claims would not "win over" anyone.

You can't name any other example where such a resumé won anyone or succeeded in turning a "cosmic" figure "into a flesh and blood human" for some promotional purpose, or persuading the masses. Such nonsense was never "necessary to win over" anyone to anything. You can't cite one case where any such thing was "necessary" -- you are only pretending this, based on your fantasies only, not on any historical fact or evidence.

. . . to win over the largely unwashed masses who would be much less likely to accept a cosmic superhero who only communicates via revelation.

You have no evidence that they would be "likely to accept" a miracle-worker other than the ancient deities like Apollo or Athena or Hercules etc. You can't name one case ever of the masses being won over to claims of a new miracle-worker appearing in recent history. You are deluded to imagine that this is what the masses demanded. You can't name one case of it ever.

Not only was there no market for such a superhero figure, popping up suddenly, but also no one who would promote such a thing, or use such an idea to win over anyone to any cause or crusade. All indications are that any such miracle claims or instant messiahs were rejected by virtually everyone, and that no one ever promoted such claims or wrote any reports of such claims or such reputed miracle-workers, prior to the case of Jesus. You can't name one example.

The closest to any such thing would be Josephus and Lucian reporting charlatans or "messiahs" of one kind or another, but these were rejected not only by these writers but by virtually everyone, by both the washed and unwashed masses, and no one wrote any favorable reports about any of them. Why do we have such reports in 4 (5) sources attesting to this one case, Jesus of Galilee, and not one other example?

Later we have other gospels dating to the second century which are obvious copies of Mark, . . .

It's dishonest to say that the other gospels are "copies" of Mark. And no legitimate scholar calls them this. There is some quoting from Mark in Mt and Lk, but this doesn't make them "copies" of Mark, and there is nothing about quoting from an earlier source which de-legitimizes a document. They all contain new matter separate from Mark, or changes which are best explained as deriving from other sources than Mark.

. . . and full of even more made-up shit.

The correct term is "contained," not "full of" -- Every ancient document contained both fact and made-up shit. That doesn't mean we can't rely on it to determine what happened. If you want to get at the truth, you have to rely on the actual documents we have, from the time, and settle down to separating fact from fiction, in the document, rather than bashing all of it with your impulsive "full of" and "made-up shit" outbursts.

And then there are the many forgeries, attempts by the "historical Jesus" cult to place Jesus in history.

There are some forgeries, but none attempting to "place Jesus in history," and there is no "historical Jesus" cult of any kind, other than just diverse writings to expand on the gospel accounts, from MANY cults, to include additional content which some later writers wanted to add.

The motive to "place Jesus in history" did not exist, because he was already in history, or seen by everyone as in history, with no need to "place" him there. If there are some forgeries adding something to the Jesus depiction, it was not done to "place Jesus in history" but to make an improvement to the original depiction which the forger thought was inadequate. The later gnostic gospels, and others, added new elements, because these later forgers had new teachings they wanted to introduce which were not contained in the 1st-century writings. Their motive was not to "place Jesus in history" but to expand upon the Jesus who was already in history and to which they wanted to add their improvements, or which they wanted to use to promote their theories.

You could attribute a similar motive also to some of the 1st-century NT writers, who may have had individual theological content of their own to add. But this makes no sense outside the premise that the real historical Jesus person had already existed and was a recognized figure in the record, and that more could be added to this record, presumably to improve it.

So at best we have two accounts within a hundred years of the alleged miracles of Jesus, and . . .

No, not just two. Again you just keep repeating your same lie over and over. There are 4 (5) accounts (5 reporting the Resurrection), from 25-70 years after the reported events. (And there are actually a few more, e.g., the Epistle of Clement mentions the Resurrection.)

Just because 2 of them quote from a 3rd (Mark) does not make them identical to Mark. Why can't you make your point without repeating this lie again and again? Never in all the literature is there any case where 4 documents are conflated into one only because 2 of them quote from a 3rd. Most of Matthew is not quotes from Mark, which means it is a separate source or account than Mark.

That you need to keep repeating this lie is further indication that the Jesus miracles did happen. Because if you had any real contrary evidence to offer, or reasons, you wouldn't need to keep repeating this lie.

By every definition of "source" or "account" used by scholars, the 4 gospels and Paul epistles are 5 sources/accounts, not only 2 (or 3). Nothing whatever of Matthew and Luke is diminished by the fact that they quote from Mark. They are still separate sources/accounts, regardless of their quotes from Mark.

. . . and they contradict each other dramatically.

In some details, but not in a way which undermines the overall account of Jesus the miracle-worker. There are some contradictions between John and the synoptics, but this doesn't mean the events didn't happen. It only means there's uncertainty on the details. And there may be a fictional element along with the factual. Where John contradicts the synoptics, the latter are more likely correct and the John version incorrect. Just as there are typically some incorrect reports by witnesses for any event which really happened, including historical events reported in mainline history sources and believed, generally, regardless of the discrepancies.

And there are other discrepancies too, in the Gospel accounts, but these only prove further that we have 4 (5) sources or accounts of the Jesus miracles, not only 1 or 2, and they indicate that these accounts relate real events, despite uncertainty over details.

Identifying the exact details for everything that happened is not necessary in order to have the general picture of what happened, as with any other historical event. There are many such contradictions between the mainline historical accounts of events, which we know happened and are part of the accepted historical record. The historical Jesus is part of that record, and the Gospels and Paul epistles are the main sources historians rely on to determine what happened, assuming there is both fact and fiction in those accounts, all of which are relied on to determine the truth, because all are sources. I.e., there are 5

5 --- count 'em --- FIVE sources, NOT ONLY 2, as you keep repeating falsely again and again.

Why is it so important to you to keep repeating this falsehood? Is it because your point -- that the Jesus miracle acts did not happen -- cannot be made without relying on falsehoods like this one?


(This Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh, look, what a surprise. Lumpen is repeating the same fallacies over and over again no matter how many times they’ve been pointed out and explained while accusing others of his own crimes.

What a pointless exercise in denialist futility. Argument from petulance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, look, what a surprise. Lumpen is repeating the same fallacies over and over again no matter how many times they’ve been pointed out and explained while accusing others of his own crimes.

What a pointless exercise in denialist futility. Argument from petulance.

Careful, you'll make him hold his breath until he turns true.

 

[fromderinside]

Why does everyone believe those who hold their breath turn blue?

Red seems more likely donchathink.

Probably has something to do with fear of a devil?