Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Lion IRC]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

 

[DBT]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

Wins? We don't have five credible sources.

 

[Learner]

Sort of like the Corinthians calling out Paul in regard to the fact that they didn't believe that Jesus resurrected? Or Thomas "doubting" that Jesus appeared to any of the apostles and wouldn't believe it himself unless he actually stuck his fingers in Jesus' wounds for some strange reason (as if he didn't actually recognize it was Jesus standing right in front of him). That kind of thing?

Don't see these as problems ...under skeptical scrutiny if you will, these doubts were resovled i.e. they believed after.

(as if he didn't actually recognize it was Jesus standing right in front of him)

It's understandable when people can't logically fathom seeing someone alive again..

the people who know you well and of your whereabouts during the claim, as with people that know well the individuals/ five facebook sources.

And since YOU don't know any of those people and would have aboslutely no way to get in contact with them even if you wanted to? You know, like EXACTLY the conditions in the first century CE?

Well in the context of this being a week ago, obviously I could ask your sources in the present time if what you say, was witnessed by them. All tests thought-of would be applied.

But you must mean if I read your sources hundreds of years later. It depends on HOW its written.

If you're telling the truth you'd probably get nothing noticeable from the people that 'know you and your whereabouts' - not a refutable mention not even a denial of the claim from outside alternative sources on twitter or instagram but you may get a few envious hateful comments.

And would those five sources be "strong evidence" that my claim was true? No.

Well it could be enough for some under scholarly scrutiny and then investigation but clearly a claim like the above wouldn't be enough for you to consider (regardless if this were true anyway).

 

[Lion IRC]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

Wins? We don't have five credible sources.

5 Facebook sources corroborating that they saw something which looked like a person flying.

*Five people - who exist
(Its a fact. They exist. Names - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Saul. Facebook users. Real people)

*All claiming they saw something (Its a fact. People have eyes. They CAN see things.)

*Five Facebook sources.
(Its a fact, Facebook exists. You can read those claims published on Facebook. They haven't been lost in the sand dune deserts of antiquity. And nobody is claiming they are forgeries.)

On what basis then, can I refute that these five people saw something (they sincerely believe) looked like a flying person?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

Wins? We don't have five credible sources.

Oh, come on! Four anonymous sources who plagiarized each other? Of unknown origin, unknown purpose, and none of whom are corroborated by any identifiable source? How can you be critical of that?
That's like saying you won't date Shirley simply because you don't know who wrote her name in four of the five the men's room stalls.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

5 Facebook sources corroborating that they saw something which looked like a person flying.

"Looked like"? Who said it merely "looked like" I was flying? My claim is that I flew hundreds of miles under my own power and that I have five (credible) sources who confirm that I did, in fact, fly hundred of miles under my own power.

On what basis then, can I refute that these five people saw something (they sincerely believe) looked like a flying person?

So now you've shifted the goalposts even further and are arguing that believe someone else believes the saw something that looked like the thing they claimed.

View attachment 28162

That's not someone flying under the own power. That's someone gliding with the help of a special suit. A condition--gliding--that could not possibly be sustained for hundreds of miles regardless.

Try again.

 

[DBT]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

Wins? We don't have five credible sources.

5 Facebook sources corroborating that they saw something which looked like a person flying.

*Five people - who exist
(Its a fact. They exist. Names - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Saul. Facebook users. Real people)

*All claiming they saw something (Its a fact. People have eyes. They CAN see things.)

*Five Facebook sources.
(Its a fact, Facebook exists. You can read those claims published on Facebook. They haven't been lost in the sand dune deserts of antiquity. And nobody is claiming they are forgeries.)

On what basis then, can I refute that these five people saw something (they sincerely believe) looked like a flying person?

View attachment 28162

You know it's not the same. I'm sure you understand the differences between what the gospels say and what people post on the internet.

 

[Learner]

5 Facebook sources corroborating that they saw something which looked like a person flying.

"Looked like"? Who said it merely "looked like" I was flying? My claim is that I flew hundreds of miles under my own power and that I have five (credible) sources who confirm that I did, in fact, fly hundred of miles under my own power.

I think the response was to DBT's...

"Wins? We don't have five credible sources."

On what basis then, can I refute that these five people saw something (they sincerely believe) looked like a flying person?

So now you've shifted the goalposts even further and are arguing that believe someone else believes the saw something that looked like the thing they claimed.

There's not really much difference where five credible sources are concerned.

That's not someone flying under the own power. That's someone gliding with the help of a special suit. A condition--gliding--that could not possibly be sustained for hundreds of miles regardless.

Try again.

But in regards to YOUR "five credible sources" having the "image" of you flying under your own power - this should be the same thing directed at you.

 

[bilby]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

How does your being a gullible fool with no grasp of evidence constitute a win for anyone?

How does attempting to score cheap debating points by use of sophistry that would be laughed off the stage at a junior school debating society not cause you to question your own position?

Some guy in a gliding suit? Seriously? If that's the best you can do, you should just admit defeat to yourself - because I can assure you that it looks just like an admission of defeat to everyone other than your similarly delusional friends.

 

[atrib]

You seem to be asking the question by already giving the premise, that your story is MADE UP. And what if there was a story like yours that was true? You'd have the same reaction as you're having now, no doubt.

Why don't you just answer the question? Do you even understand what my point is? Let me explain.

Lumpy begins with the premise that stories of supernatural events should be believed if there is more than one source for the story. His argument goes thus: there are 4 or 5 sources for the supernatural stories in the Bible; therefore the stories are likely true.

1. Do you agree with Lumpy's premise?

Lumpy didn't say, "just beleive them just like that" ...without there being any vigorous research and study - which at best is to discredit the writers. For example, that they're lying or delusional etc..

Lumpy didn't say what you claim he said. He merely asserts that the Bible stories should be considered true because there is more than one source for the story.

But lets follow up on your response. What happens in the case where the writers are anonymous, as is the case with the Gospels? Should we accept the premise that the stories are true if we know nothing about the authors, just because more than one person wrote/copied/embellished the story? What about the authors of the Gospels? What do we know about them? Since you believe the Bible, I would have to assume that you have done the due diligence you are talking about. What did this due diligence turn up? Care to share?

If we cannot determine that the authors are delusional or lying, does that automatically mean the stories are credible? Even when the events described violate the laws of nature?

Please stop dodging and answer the question. Do you accept Lumpy's premise that we should accept supernatural stories as likely true just because we have more than one source for the story?

2. If yes, you must agree that the story of me flying from Columbia to Atlanta must also be considered credible because the story is supported by multiple sources. Would you find the story of my unpowered flight credible if I showed you 5 facebook posts claiming this happened? If not, why not?


I agree with Lumpy and it will be down to the details for example just by posting the "little" paragraph above wouldn't be enough for me to believe it.

Once again, Lumpy doesn't qualify his argument. Nor did he respond to my post with the example of stories of me flying from Columbia to Atlanta. You are just making up shit. His premise and conclusion are stated just as I have written them out.

Interestingly enough, you also appear to agree with me that a detailed analysis of the story, along with the sources, their motivations and biases, and supporting evidence should be considered before we accept the story to be true. You are implicitly disagreeing with Lumpy's position, even though you explicitly state that you agree with him.

3. You state that my story is made up but the Bible stories are not. How do you know the Bible miracle stories aren't made up? What makes them special? And why do you consider my story to be made up when I have just as much evidence as the Bible to support them?

I understand what you are trying to get at - stating the obvious, the very details you've just given for example .. is certainly not enough.

Again, you didn't answer the question I had asked you. How do you know the Bible miracle stories aren't made up? What makes them special? And why do you consider my story to be made up when I have just as much evidence as the Bible to support them? Can you please stop dancing and answer the question that was asked? Why is this so fucking hard?

4. Finally: should supernatural claims be held to a different standard than claims that do not violate the known laws of nature? Yes or no, can you explain your reasoning?

Not sure, if you mean being open to the possibilty or that supernatural should be purely classified as a fairy tale "standard"? My answer - supernatural (biblical narrative) and natural (world) can be connected in a variety of ways.

That was not my question. Please answer the question I had asked.

Finally: should supernatural claims be held to a different standard than claims that do not violate the known laws of nature? Yes or no, can you explain your reasoning?

In this context, as I have stated previously, a supernatural claim would be one where the known laws of the universe were being violated. Like a corpse being resurrected and flying off into space, or a human flying hundreds of miles without the aid of any mechanical devices, just by chanting some words.

You also make this claim:

My answer - supernatural (biblical narrative) and natural (world) can be connected in a variety of ways.

Feel free to explain how they are connected, and how this connection can be demonstrated.

I find it hard to believe that you don't understand plain English. I think you won't answer the questions honestly because doing so would contradict your position. And you choose your dogma over intellectual integrity.

 

[Lion IRC]

5 Facebook sources corroborating that they saw something which looked like a person flying.

"Looked like"? Who said it merely "looked like" I was flying?

All scientific evidence is derived from the senses. #Bacon #Science101
'Looked like' is the claim made by observers.

My claim is that I flew hundreds of miles under my own power and that I have five (credible) sources who confirm that I did...

No. You have five credible sources who claim they saw what appeared to be you flying.

Hey bilby, are you proud of me? I'm splaining science to an atheist. This open-minded skepticism stuff is cool.

I did, in fact, fly hundred of miles under my own power.

Thats your claim yes. Just lose the "in fact" part, and were good to go.

On what basis then, can I refute that these five people saw something (they sincerely believe) looked like a flying person?

So now you've shifted the goalposts even further and are arguing that believe someone else believes the saw something that looked like the thing they claimed.

NOPE. Remember, I'm the one saying your five credible sources that corroborate your claim should be believed.

That's not someone flying under the own power. That's someone gliding with the help of a special suit. A condition--gliding--that could not possibly be sustained for hundreds of miles regardless.

Try again.

NOPE that picture is someone flying with the aid of miraculous assistance. God sends powerful winds to lift them up and carry them all the way from South Carolina to Georgia

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Great, so you've just affirmed that NONE of the bullshit you or Lumpy spew matters and that you simply have decided to randomly believe one set of claims someone else made for no other reason than you wanted to.

Finally, an honest answer.

 

[Lion IRC]

Five credible sources - all corroborating the same observation.
Lumpy wins.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Five credible sources

No, but even if yes, irrelevant.

- all corroborating the same observation.

Also wrong. The synoptic accounts do not corroborate the same observation, but, again, even if yes, irrelevant.

Lumpy wins.

No. You both lose, because you are both throwing your lives away believing ludicrous cult fairy tales from two thousand year old sheep herders at best--Roman propagandists at worst--dictating principles that YOU very clearly do not abide by regardless.

 

[Lion IRC]

So corroboration is now irrelevant. And credible sources are irrelevant.
OK.
There goes your argument against miracles.

 

[DBT]

In the gospels we don't have reliable eye witness accounts by independent observers. There is no way to know what, if anything, actually happened.

 

[atrib]

Five credible sources - all corroborating the same observation.
Lumpy wins.

What did Lumpy win? An Oscar for best impersonation of a cockatoo? Congratulations for having maintained a 5-year monologue where he tries to convince himself that he still believes in the Christian god? What did he win?

 

[atrib]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

I don't think you would believe I could fly hundreds of miles without the aid of any mechanical devices while chanting some words, no matter how many credible sources attested to such an event. Sorry, but I just don't believe you.

 

[atrib]

If I saw 5 credible sources corroborating the same claim I would believe it.

Lumpenproletariat wins.

Wins? We don't have five credible sources.

5 Facebook sources corroborating that they saw something which looked like a person flying.

*Five people - who exist
(Its a fact. They exist. Names - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Saul. Facebook users. Real people)

*All claiming they saw something (Its a fact. People have eyes. They CAN see things.)

*Five Facebook sources.
(Its a fact, Facebook exists. You can read those claims published on Facebook. They haven't been lost in the sand dune deserts of antiquity. And nobody is claiming they are forgeries.)

On what basis then, can I refute that these five people saw something (they sincerely believe) looked like a flying person?

That was not the question. The question was whether you would believe that a human could fly hundreds of miles without the aid of any mechanical devices simply by chanting some words, if there were multiple sources attesting to this event. Not whether the witnesses believed they had seen a flying man. Completely different premise. How did you miss that?

 

[atrib]

It's understandable when people can't logically fathom seeing someone alive again..

That would not be surprising, considering that such a thing has never happened in all of human history. Not once. Such an event would be impossible to fathom for that very reason. I agree with you completely and commend you on your brilliant powers of observation, and your profound understanding of the human condition.

On the other hand, we have excellent evidence that billions of dead and buried people have never risen up from their graves. Literally billions of dead people testifying from their graves (metaphorically speaking, of course) that such an event is impossible. But I'm sure you have a really good explanation for why the Jesus resurrection story should be considered fact despite the mountains of evidence against it, and I can't wait to hear your explanation.

And since YOU don't know any of those people and would have aboslutely no way to get in contact with them even if you wanted to? You know, like EXACTLY the conditions in the first century CE?

Well in the context of this being a week ago, obviously I could ask your sources in the present time if what you say, was witnessed by them. All tests thought-of would be applied.

But you must mean if I read your sources hundreds of years later. It depends on HOW its written.

Really? You think we should test such claims? What a novel concept. I wonder why nobody has thought of doing something like that before you came up with this brilliant idea? Your insight is remarkable! Truly astonishing!

And what does this mean, "How its written"? Do you mean if the text uses proper grammar and syntax, and is formatted using the latest Chicago Manual of Style guidelines, the story should be believed? I continue to be amazed by your keen, incisive insights.

If you're telling the truth you'd probably get nothing noticeable from the people that 'know you and your whereabouts' - not a refutable mention not even a denial of the claim from outside alternative sources on twitter or instagram but you may get a few envious hateful comments.

And would those five sources be "strong evidence" that my claim was true? No.

Well it could be enough for some under scholarly scrutiny and then investigation but clearly a claim like the above wouldn't be enough for you to consider (regardless if this were true anyway).

Scholarly scrutiny? So you think scientists and scholars should be sitting around waiting to vigorously investigate stories about men flying around in the sky, and searching the net for such stories? Have you talked to the National Science Foundation about this idea? And about the testing? I am humbled to be in the presence of a mind like yours.