Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[James Brown]

The idea that Jesus dictated his thoughts, and that the illiterate fisherman who heard his thoughts wrote them down in real time, would require a massive amount of evidence to be supported.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Consider it as dictating while someone was writing it down, where Jesus gets the credit for His thoughts.

So, wait, if some invented a scientific theory, about, say, anti-darks, because there's a big gaping hole in light theory, and the anti-dark particle is the only way it makes sense, despite there being no experimental basis for the idea, you'd dismiss it as made-up speculation, and poor science at best, no? Fiction, maybe? A lie at worst?

But adding things to scripture, which scripture itself says is a no'no, is just a common sense way to resolve an apparent problem.

None of the apostles are identified as Jesus' chronicler. No passage describes "Jesus' account of his conversation with Satan, as told to Matthew one night." And still, none of the authors besides Paul identifies who is writing the gospel, or why.

So, why would you add dictation to your understanding of The Books? And why would anyone think it was not a Hail Mary invention of made-up bullshit?

 

[Lion IRC]

We have a long line of unknown copyists, editors, and redactors who all said that Paul...

You admit they are unknown.
You don't know who they were, so you cant use their identity to discredit them as accurate historians.

 

[Lion IRC]

The idea that Jesus dictated his thoughts, and that the illiterate fisherman who heard his thoughts wrote them down in real time, would require a massive amount of evidence to be supported.

Those 'fishermen' were running a business with their wealthy father Zebedee (who had strong connections with highly literate members of the Sanhedrin)

Why do you assert they were illiterate? I suppose you assert they were innumerate as well? Do you likewise believe they had no ability to speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin?

 

[James Brown]

We have a long line of unknown copyists, editors, and redactors who all said that Paul...

You admit they are unknown.
You don't know who they were, so you cant use their identity to discredit them as accurate historians.

Agreed. I can't use their identity for anything. So I suppose that means that we can't be sure that what we read in the gospels today is exactly what some anonymous author said that he heard other people say about what Jesus said. It's unfortunate, really.

Much like the margin note in one page of  Codex Vaticanus, where one copyist scolded another copyist, writing, "Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not change it!" We don't know the identity of the original copyist, nor the one who scolded him, but it certainly seems interesting that someone would go to the trouble of writing in the margin of an expensive book that some funny business was going on.

 

[James Brown]

The idea that Jesus dictated his thoughts, and that the illiterate fisherman who heard his thoughts wrote them down in real time, would require a massive amount of evidence to be supported.

Those 'fishermen' were running a business with their wealthy father Zebedee (who had strong connections with highly literate members of the Sanhedrin)

Perhaps. But rather than sending them to school to become scholars, they were working on a fishing boat where literacy was not needed. It's not like there were newspapers with weather reports, or daily bulletins regarding market pricing.

Unless it's your contention that their father paid for them to go to school to become intellectuals, and then ordered them to throw away their expensive education to become blue-collar fishermen. Sure, it's possible, but not very likely.

Why do you assert they were illiterate?

Statistics. Pick a number between 1 and 100. If you didn't choose 98, 99, or 100, then you are illiterate. Literacy in 1st-century Palestine has been calculated less than three percent.[1]

Plus, in Acts chapter 4 they are described as unschooled and ordinary men. Who am I to disagree with Holy Writ?



[1] https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/articles/to_check/illitera.html

 

[bilby]

We have a long line of unknown copyists, editors, and redactors who all said that Paul...

You admit they are unknown.
You don't know who they were, so you cant use their identity to discredit them as accurate historians.

I met a guy in a pub once who claimed to have a completely new take on quantum physics and relativity. He outlined on a beermat a grand unified theory of physics.

And as I was pissed at the time, and don't know who he was, I can't discredit him as a quantum or relativistic physicist.

But that's no reason at all not to think that his entire thesis was a load of drunken bollocks.

If you don't know who somebody is, then they could be anybody. That's not a good reason to imagine that they are someone with a specific and fairly rare skill set.

Shit, I don't know who you are. But that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for me to assume that you are not an historian (accurate or otherwise). It's very unlikely that you are. Most people (including me) aren't.

But your argument depends on it being plausible that ALL of these unidentified people could be accurate historians.

Which leads me to conclude that EITHER you are unimaginably stupid; OR you enjoy making yourself an object of ridicule.

 

[Learner]

Consider it as dictating while someone was writing it down, where Jesus gets the credit for His thoughts.

So, wait, if some invented a scientific theory, about, say, anti-darks, because there's a big gaping hole in light theory, and the anti-dark particle is the only way it makes sense, despite there being no experimental basis for the idea, you'd dismiss it as made-up speculation, and poor science at best, no? Fiction, maybe? A lie at worst?

You mean like when you say "God of the gaps" sort of thing?

But adding things to scripture, which scripture itself says is a no'no, is just a common sense way to resolve an apparent problem.

None of the apostles are identified as Jesus' chronicler. No passage describes "Jesus' account of his conversation with Satan, as told to Matthew one night." And still, none of the authors besides Paul identifies who is writing the gospel, or why.

So, why would you add dictation to your understanding of The Books? And why would anyone think it was not a Hail Mary invention of made-up bullshit?

The idea that Jesus dictated his thoughts, and that the illiterate fisherman who heard his thoughts wrote them down in real time, would require a massive amount of evidence to be supported.

Pendantic frantic responses isn't necessary imo when responding to 'figure of speech' quotes which should be understandable enough.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The real Jesus in history vs. the later embellishment.

We must rely on the evidence from the time, not some contemporary pundit's cosmic vibes about what should or should not have happened.

Nothing about embellishment casts doubt on the original reported Jesus miracle acts, but actually the opposite: the embellishment points to the fact of the earlier Jesus miracle acts, which then explains where the embellishment came from. There had to be something there originally for them to do the embellishing to. It's easy to explain how an original miracle claim would become embellished into a bigger claim. But no one yet can explain how the original claim (Jesus miracles) got started.

OK, but there can't be an embellishment without first having something to embellish. What was it that they embellished?

What everyone always embellishes; the fantastical parts and always in escalatory fashion.

And what were those parts? These have to be something which really happened. What really happened?

The best answer is that he healed the blind and others, in many miracle healing acts, and then later some of this got "embellished" into stories about turning water into wine, or multiplying the fish and loaves. That would be a legitimate theory.

But that means he did perform the miracle acts, originally, and then other miracles got added, as fiction, to the original accounts of his real acts.

But if that's not it, then what are the "fantastical parts" which were embellished? There had to be something real which happened (even though "fantastical") which then later got embellished.

Nobody embellishes mundane elements, like, "and then he brushed FIVE of his teeth!"

No, in the case of Emperor Vespasian we have one miracle story, and this was added to the claim that he was a god, like the earlier emperors had been, and this was credited to Vespasian the great military hero whose "fantastical" (but real) deeds were his military battles and victories.

So we can identify what made Vespasian into a hero to be mythologized. He was already a real hero, and to this real element a fictional part got added, with at least this one miracle story, and maybe some other legends also.

So then, what was the original factual historical Jesus, before the miracle stories were added? This is what no one can answer. And yet there has to be an answer. There must be something real there, something special, like Vespasian was special, and then to that real person who was unique and distinguished, other legend elements get added. So what is the original figure Jesus to whom the miracles got added? No one seems to be able to give the answer.

(But, hint: it was the miracles he performed. That's what made him special originally.)

Nobody gives a shit about a story where the protagonist is just an ordinary guy and nobody tells a story about a protagonist that is just an ordinary guy. And the reason the embellishments occur is in order to elevate the ordinary into the extraordinary, so that . . .

No no, you have to start out with a guy who is NOT ordinary. Vespasian was NOT ordinary. St. Nicholas was NOT ordinary. No one gets mythologized into a miracle-worker unless he starts out as an unusual person to begin with. Gautama Buddha was NOT ordinary. Krishna, if he existed, was NOT ordinary. The prophet(s) Elijah/Elisha were NOT ordinary. They were turned into miracle-workers over 300 years of legend-building. They were undoubtedly charismatic prophets who had a strong impact on some followers, during a long career, and the 300 years of legend-building did the rest.

So the miracle legend hero has to start out as someone special, and then miracles get added to the original person who was real and was special, even though not supernatural.

The reason the embellishments occur is not to "elevate the ordinary into the extraordinary," but to elevate someone already special and unordinary, because people are impressed with him, and by elevating him they make him into a supernatural figure even MORE special, after he started out being special already.

So to explain the miracles of Jesus you have to explain how he was unusual and special even from the beginning. I.e., how he was already unordinary even before the miracles were added.

. . . ordinary into the extraordinary, so that people are impressed and pay attention to your story.

OK, to get even more attention to the hero being uplifted. But you have to tell us how the hero is already special even before the embellishment begins. So, how was Jesus already special even before the miracles were added?

The most logical assessment in regard to Jesus is that he was the leader of a small, but effective insurrectionist movement who got ratted out by one of his own (hence the sequence where Judas has to kiss Jesus in order to tell the Roman soldiers there to arrest him, which one was the actual leader of the group). Jesus was then publicly tried, tortured, mocked as a pretend King seditionist -- by the Romans in front of the Jewish crowd in order to teach them all a lesson -- and then nailed to a cross to rot (like all seditionists) throughout the "festival" as a further warning to all.

OK, when will you get to the good part, telling us what was special about him? There's nothing special about him so far in your description of him. There were hundreds of persons who meet your description, even thousands if we expand the geography to other countries and the time to centuries earlier and later. Yet there are no other miracle-worker legends like the Jesus in the Gospels. So, you need to get to the unique part which made him special.

His men scattered as instructed and slowly, after a few years, started to regroup and reform their earlier seditionist movement and along the way they would tell martyr stories about their fallen leader, probably just . . .

As had happened to hundreds of other fallen leaders, earlier and later, most of whom have been forgotten entirely. And those we know of, like Bar Kokhba, etc., were not credited with miracles. Because they were not unusual enough, or special enough. So, what was special about Jesus that separates him from all the other seditionist martyrs?

. . . as a reminder of his bravery and teachings for a better world once the Roman occupiers are overthrown and then more as a recruitment mythology. You know, like precisely what is done and has been done in that region for centuries up into today?

But where are the miracle-workers who reportedly rose from the dead through the centuries? Why are there no other examples of these? Just some "bravery and teachings for a better world" does not distinguish Jesus from all the others. What made him different or distinguished enough that he was turned into "the Messiah" and "Savior" and miracle-working Son of God?

Your version of Jesus names nothing distinguished about him, placing him alongside thousands of other leaders who did the same things. But nothing special. So you have no explanation how the Jesus miracle legend came about, because there are no other examples of such a legend.

Those stories -- of his cunning and leadership and religious outlook for a new kingdom on earth -- then get embellished. The one time he managed to feed a small group of gatherers with nothing but a few loaves of bread and some fish gets turned into feeding a huge group of people with loaves and fishes that never ended.

But you're still not explaining why no one else got turned into such a miracle-worker.

You're telling us the extra miracle legends that maybe were added. But you're not telling us who he was in the first place which made him special so that the miracles were added, or what made him the unordinary person, like the emperor Vespasian was special, and like St. Nicholas was special. You skipped over the part you're supposed to explain, i.e., the starting point, or the original special person to whom the later legends were added.

Nothing you said above explains how Jesus did anything special. Just to say he was a leader of a rebel gang is not enough -- there were hundreds, even thousands of those in history. Easily dozens of them in that very time and place. He did not stand out from all those hundreds of others, from anything you're saying.

By contrast, Emperor Vespasian stood out, as one among millions. And likewise other special hero figures in history. And to this was added the miracle legends. In a very few cases there might be someone less distinguished who got mythologized, but that would at least require several generations or centuries to develop.

So you have to back up and explain better what made Jesus special, such that he got reported and published and mythologized into a resurrected miracle-worker in only 40 years. Just being leader of another anti-Roman rebel gang doesn't explain anything.

The one time he turned to summon Jehovah to stop a storm that just coincidentally started to abate right at that moment gets turned into him having the power to command nature. The one time he gently brushed the cheek of a dying child, who seemed to get a little bit better at his touch, becomes a healing power that could cure the blind and lepers. Etc., etc., etc.

At best you're claiming there were several coincidences happening to this one person which never happened to anyone else. He was not special in any way, but somehow several strange events just happened to him which never happened to anyone else. If that's your explanation, then you're practically saying he had super-human power, somehow bringing these miracle events with him which were not a coincidence at all. It's not reasonable to believe all these coincidental miracles kept happening to him, i.e., to him alone and to no one else, and yet nothing caused it. If he was not special, the same coincidences should have happened to other people also, who also would be turned into miracle-workers, like he was.

Ordinary becomes extraordinary and powers start to . . .

No, it's not ordinary for apparent miracle events to keep happening to one person only and not to anyone else. He had to be unordinary to begin with, for these coincidences to keep happening only to him.

Why can't you tell us what was special about him BEFORE the coincidences started happening? You're just speculating that coincidences started happening to only this one person for no reason. That doesn't answer what was special about him.

. . . powers start to grow and transform, exactly in the same manner that in one book Jesus grants those healing powers to the people who are telling those stories initially (the "disciples") that in turn in the next retelling of the story ten or so years later they not only get healing powers, but now they get powers to raise the dead.

But why did no one else get credited with healing powers? Why only him? What did he do special that people started believing he was doing these miracles he wasn't really doing? Why didn't they think John the Baptist did healings? or James the Just? or many other revered prophets and teachers and rabbis? or their disciples for that matter? By many accounts James and JtB had more disciples than Jesus did -- so, why don't we have any miracle stories about their disciples? Why did only the disciples of Jesus get embellished into miracle-workers?

Why didn't "powers start to grow and transform" in their case also? Why did only Jesus have this crazy phenomenon happening to him that people suddenly started imagining he was doing these miracles, or pretending it, or pretending his disciples did? but didn't pretend anyone else was doing the same?

You're not telling us what was special about Jesus to start with, such that any embellishment would be added to his original story, i.e., to the real person in the beginning. Like they were added to Gautama Buddha or to Emperor Vespasian or to St. Nicholas, who did stand out and were distinguished, and, in the case of Buddha and St. Nicholas, had centuries of storytelling to help add to the legend-building.

If you're going from having the power to heal to having . . .

No we're not going from there -- we're going earlier than the power to heal, which is the fiction you're saying was added to something earlier. But what was the something earlier -- the earlier Jesus person to whom the power to heal was added? Where did the "power to heal" come from, i.e., what caused someone to attribute this miracle power to him? You're not explaining how any such powers (or claims of it) got started in the first place. Nevermind where it goes from there. You have to explain where the miracle power got started, being attributed to someone who was not special. He had to be special in order for such myths to be attributed to him. You can't name any other case where someone of no special status or recognition suddenly is transformed into a miracle-worker.

It's true we have a story of Emperor Vespasian doing a miracle, but he was RECOGNIZED as someone very special, BEFORE that miracle story got added to him -- someone with a vast widespread reputation as a powerful hero. That explains how a miracle claim about him could get published in only 40 or 50 years after the event. He was very special, one in 10 million or so.

. . . to having the power to heal and raise the dead in just ten or so years, then simply extrapolate backwards from the version of the story that was told ten years prior (which was itself a version of the story told some forty years after the alleged facts). It's not rocket surgery.

It's your rocket blowing up on the launchpad at lift-off -- it's a disaster, explaining nothing you're supposed to be explaining. What was special about Jesus? How was he unordinary, in the beginning when he was a real person, which caused him to be transformed into something miraculous? You have no explanation for anything.

From he touched a sick child that seemed to get better from his touch to he can heal the sick! to he granted us his powers to heal to we have powers to heal and raise the dead.

Again you're saying a long string of coincidences happened to this one person only, who wasn't special otherwise. You're not explaining why such coincidences could not happen to anyone but him.

All in a forty to fifty year game of telephone.

Sure, nothing to it. Happens all the time. And yet you can't name any other case in history when it happened, except in the 21st century on YouTube. But you have no case before modern times where every nutcase claim is published and broadcast to millions of viewers. Where in history centuries ago do we have any other example of a virtual nobody getting transformed into a miracle-worker? You can't name anything special about him that he should draw this unique attention.

And think of the people we're talking about. Not exactly critical thinkers. Look at Paul. The ONLY reason he is even a topic of discussion is because he claimed to have a "vision." That's it.

Right, he had nothing else, assuming Jesus actually did not rise from the dead. You're making my point. There was no reason for anyone to believe this Paul, who was a nutcase fool if your theory is correct. He made up some nonsense that no one would have believed (other than a half-dozen wackos) if it wasn't so. So if your theory is correct, there should be no surviving epistles of Paul, because those nutcase writings would never have been copied by anyone, or read to groups, or given any recognition.

So you have to answer: Why did so many people believe Paul? Why did they believe this weirdo fantasizing about a Jesus character rising from the dead? like other nutcases here and there making up nonsense no one believed other than a few ignorant fools? You're not explaining why they didn't dismiss Paul like they did all the other nutcases.

That was the full extent of their critical acceptance. Oh, ok, well, if you say you had a vision, then of course, it must have been true so come on in.

You're making my point. No one ever did accept such claims or phony visions by wackos. If Paul's Jesus was his own fantasy and nothing more, they would have laughed at Paul, maybe even tarred and feathered him and run him out of town on a rail.

There were millions of people who had visions. That doesn't explain where the Jesus Resurrection story came from, why it was published even though no one else's visions of resurrections were published. You're not answering why people believed Paul, if they didn't already believe Jesus had resurrected. The only explanation why Paul had any success is that people already believed in the Resurrection, or had heard reports of it and wondered if it was true, and so Paul didn't have to make it up and try to convert them to his own private visions as your theory fantasizes. So you have to explain why they believed the Resurrection really happened, before Paul preached it to them.

And don't forget that Paul is alleged to have been the one to basically say that anything claimed in regard to the "good news"-- even lies -- are ok because of the importance of the word.

If that were true you'd quote where it's from -- whatever it means.

We literally see exactly this kind of escalatory embellishment all over the place in history and just every day stories.

If that were true you'd be able to cite an example of it from ancient history. You're pretending that there are other cases of miracle-worker legends, "all over the place," caused by embellishment, in other "gospels" or various religions, and yet you can't give any example. You can't give one example of any such "every day stories" about any other instant miracle-workers whose existence is explained by embellishment only.

It's what "embellish" means ffs.

You don't know what "embellish" means, because you can't figure it out that there has to be a special person there in the first place, or something special, to be the object of the embellishment, and you can't name what that is. You've identified nothing that could explain anything special about the original Jesus, the real one in history, to whom the embellishment could happen.

Look at what you are doing. You are so desperate to establish the ludicrous notion that Santa Clause is real that you are . . .

St. Nicholas was a real person, who was special (but not superhuman), and so he became a legend and was transformed into a miracle-worker over many centuries of storytelling. That explains the Santa legend, even though it's fiction. Now why can't you explain the Jesus legend, if it's fiction, just as the Santa legend can be explained?

. . . that you are abandoning all rational thought in an ironic attempt to apply rational thought to a belief that is inherently and deliberately irrational.

Relying on facts/evidence available to others is not to abandon rational thought. We have the recorded written accounts from the time saying it happened -- the same kind of evidence we have for most of the ancient historical events. While instead of facts you have only your outburst that it is "inherently and deliberately irrational" -- i.e., you admit that you have no facts and that the miracle claims have to be false despite any facts, because it's just "inherently" irrational regardless of the facts or evidence. You can always claim you're "inherently" right and so don't need any facts.

Faith is supposed to be in spite of the evidence that contradicts it.

No, "faith" was what the woman with a hemorrhage had:

Mark 5:25 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well." 29 And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, "Who touched my garments?" . . . 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease."

She had "faith" it says. The explanation is, "She had heard the reports about Jesus, . . ." meaning she had evidence of his healing power, from what she had heard before. It wasn't "in spite of the evidence," but because of the evidence she had, from the reports she had heard.

So "faith" in this case is based on the evidence, not in spite of it. This woman with "faith" had evidence plus hope = salvation/healing.

Yet you are doing the exact opposite by trying to ground your faith in facts, no matter . . .

The above woman's FAITH was grounded in facts, i.e., the REPORTS she had heard about Jesus from earlier.

. . . no matter how tortured they have to be in order for you to make your case for yourself.

So your argument is that we should ignore the facts, because they are tortured, and instead we should believe IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE instead of believing facts.

It's obvious that you have no facts from history, from the 1st century, for any of your claims, and so your beliefs about it are based on some kind of faith which contradicts facts.

But the evidence we have from the 1st century says these events happened, and people believed, based on evidence, and were healed because they believed, as in the case of this woman with the hemorrhage. The best explanation is that it really happened, because there is no other explanation how these accounts originated if it did not happen. There are no other examples of anything like this, from history, although it's true you might find some nutty nonsense on YouTube today. But otherwise we have reports of this singular event from 2000 years ago, and all the indications are that it really happened.

All of us see right through what you're trying to do, so it's sure as shit not . . .

Yes, you "see right through" the reported facts of history to the REAL COSMIC TRUTH saying we must reject the reported miracle acts because they contradict your theories about what reality ought to be instead of what's reported in the evidence.

. . . not being done for our sake. You are right now turning reality into fiction in order to fit your beliefs.

No, if anyone turned reality into this fiction, it's not me, because I'm quoting from an ancient source saying it happened, and confirmed by other sources near the time. These sources are from 2000 years ago, so how can it have been created in order to fit my beliefs? since I didn't exist until modern times, 2000 years later than this is reported in the historical accounts? You're saying the apostle Paul and the Gospel writers looked far into the future to see someone's beliefs today in order to create their story?

And you don't even see it. Or, . . .

Yes, I don't see how someone's beliefs today could have inspired the writer of Mark in 70 AD to report a woman being cured. I don't quite "see" that.

. . . or worse, you do and don't care.

I care what happened back then, or any other time something important is reported. And I care if you have any further evidence about what really happened. But what no one should care about is your visions or what you "see" with your cosmic antenna into the past to divine what "really" happened (or should have happened in your alternate reality) in spite of the evidence from the time telling us what happened.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some stories are true, others are fiction, and we can usually tell the difference.

Ok, you say miracle, but Jesus Himself, you must agree has something over the Fairies, Easter bunny and Santa Claus.

Why should the Jesus miracle stories be treated differently? Because you believe them?

To make these comparisons, we need to know the sources for the Fairies and Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. We need the written record telling us of these entities, what they did, where, and when. And we need to know when the source reporting them was written.

We have this information about the Jesus miracle acts, but we have no such information or sources for the Fairies, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

For St. Nicholas, who was historical, there are some sources (or at least one), but only 300-400 years later. And the miracles about Santa did not evolve until 1000+ years later. This is not evidence for miracle claims.

We have normal evidence for the Jesus miracle acts, reported in written accounts near the time of the reported events, whereas we have no such evidence for Fairies, the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus. So it's reasonable to believe the Jesus miracle stories, reported in multiple sources near the time of the reported events.

If anyone claims there are sources for the others, they have to quote those sources, not just say there are stories. We need to have quotes from the sources, telling us what happened, and we need to know when the source is dated. Until then, there is no reason to believe those miracle claims are about real events.

All the claims have to be judged by the same standards, by asking the same questions: What is claimed to have happened? When and where did it happen? How many witnesses were reportedly there? What's the source for it? How many sources and when are they dated?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You mean like when you say "God of the gaps" sort of thing?

Not quite. God of The Gaps is when you dissect current knowledge, asking 'why?' and 'how?' until the authority runs out of answers. Then, at the limit of knowlege, where cartographers used to write 'here there be dragons,' you claim 'because god.'

This is more like when Superman has a new superpower to solve the plot twist. Or when someone finally said, "Hey, Piltdown Man doesn't make any sense unless fraud is involved."

So, why would you add dictation to your understanding of The Books? And why would anyone think it was not a Hail Mary invention of made-up bullshit?

Pendantic frantic responses isn't necessary imo when responding to 'figure of speech' quotes which should be understandable enough.

oh. So now, your solution to the problem is a mere "figure of speech," and questioning your source is "frantic."

Got it.

So, you're still left with anonymous accounts, of unknown purpose or authenticity, written at an unidentified remove from the events, with details added by later authors, upon which you literally 'bet your soul' (not a figure of speech).
But i'm being frantic.
Got it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not quite. God of The Gaps is when you dissect current knowledge, asking 'why?' and 'how?' until the authority runs out of answers. Then, at the limit of knowlege, where cartographers used to write 'here there be dragons,' you claim 'because god.'

This is more like when Superman has a new superpower to solve the plot twist. Or when someone finally said, "Hey, Piltdown Man doesn't make any sense unless fraud is involved."

Pendantic frantic responses isn't necessary imo when responding to 'figure of speech' quotes which should be understandable enough.

oh. So now, your solution to the problem is a mere "figure of speech," and questioning your source is "frantic."

Got it.

So, you're still left with anonymous accounts, of unknown purpose or authenticity, written at an unidentified remove from the events, with details added by later authors, upon which you literally 'bet your soul' (not a figure of speech).
But i'm being frantic.
Got it.

Calm down already. Magic events happen all the time. I lost my keys and then I found them. It could only have been the work of a magic being.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Calm down already. Magic events happen all the time. I lost my keys and then I found them. It could only have been the work of a magic being.

well, yeah, car key gnomes are as well-documented as Santa Claus, but who told Matthew about the Flight into Egypt?

 

[skepticalbip]

We must rely on the evidence from the time, not some contemporary pundit's cosmic vibes about what should or should not have happened.


(Loads of even more special pleading drivel skipped.)

"Evidence from the time" is that the Caesars were gods, testified to be so by the educated, literate, and known members of the Roman senate.

"Evidence from the time" would also 'prove' that the Egyptian pharaohs were also gods.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Yes, we use EVIDENCE FROM THE TIME to determine that the Resurrection and other events happened --

-- rather than believing legends which evolved over hundreds/thousands of years or conjectures from modern-day ideologue-pundits on a crusade to debunk the miracles of Jesus in spite of the evidence.

We must rely on the evidence from the time, not some contemporary pundit's cosmic vibes about what should or should not have happened.

"Evidence from the time" is that the Caesars were gods, testified to be so by the educated, literate, and known members of the Roman senate.

"Evidence from the time" would also 'prove' that the Egyptian pharaohs were also gods.

Yes, "evidence from the time" does prove that the Caesars and the pharaohs were worshiped as gods. I.e., that they had vast power over millions of subjects who were required to bow before them and submit to them and perform rituals to honor them.

Evidence from the time is how we know this, from writers saying they had power and ruled over those subjects. Without the writings saying it, from the time, we wouldn't know of those practices.

And that's how we know of the Resurrection of Christ, from writings of the time, from those who knew of this event, reporting what the witnesses saw, witnessing him being killed and yet being alive a few days later. That's a particular event reported in the writings, not contradicted by any other writings of the time, making it likely that it did happen, just as other writings report the Caesars and pharaohs being powerful rulers who commanded obedience and worship from their millions of subjects.

And also, we do NOT have evidence from the time that Zeus or Apollo cast thunderbolts at people, or that Krishna or Buddha performed any miracles, or that Hercules or Prometheus or Perseus, etc., performed any miracle deeds, because there is nothing from the time of those gods or heroes -- the time when it's believed they did these things -- testifying to those miracle deeds. I.e., all the "evidence" about those alleged miracle acts is dated from centuries or thousands of years later than they allegedly happened, and therefore the reports are not legitimate evidence.


So in our catalog of historical events, we can list:

• Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead.

• The Caesars and Pharaohs were worshiped as gods.

and a few trillion other facts reported in the evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's reasonable to believe the evidence, from multiple sources, not contradicted by other evidence.

Can you explain why it would be reasonable for us to believe that Jesus performed miracles? What is the evidence, and what . . .

The reports from the time saying it happened are evidence that it happened. Like ALL reports saying something happened are evidence that it happened, if they are dated near the time that it happened (unless you want to toss out 99% of our ancient history knowledge). This means ALL reports, including those denying something, are evidence, with no surviving evidence being excluded, as long as it's confirmed that it dates near to the time of the reported events. So the Gospel accounts and other NT writings must be included as evidence, with all other documents, and any of them might be ranked lower in credibility than others, depending on the consistency with all the other evidence.

It's reasonable to believe Jesus performed miracles, because all the evidence is that he did, and there's no evidence from the time denying it, like there are some examples of reported charlatans or frauds in the ancient literature.

The only "evidence" that he did not do miracles is the dogma that all miracle claims must be false, or that all miracles are impossible, regardless of reports or evidence that they happened. It's reasonable to reject a dogma like this if it's contradicted by reports of a miracle event, and this is confirmed by multiple sources near the time of the reported event. A reasonable person can choose to believe the multiple sources, not contradicted by other evidence, rather than a doctrine claiming that it's impossible.

. . . and what makes you conclude that a supernatural creator bending the laws of nature is the best explanation for the miracle stories in the gospels?

One does not need an explanation how something is possible in order to believe it, if there are multiple sources near the time saying it happened. Many events happen which cannot be explained. If the explanation is known, then it's easier to believe it, but if enough sources report it, dated near the time, then it's reasonable to believe it even if it's not known how it happened.

One can conjecture about the "laws of nature" being bent, and other causes, but these conjectures are not necessary in order to reasonably believe it happened.

 

[skepticalbip]

We must rely on the evidence from the time, not some contemporary pundit's cosmic vibes about what should or should not have happened.

"Evidence from the time" is that the Caesars were gods, testified to be so by the educated, literate, and known members of the Roman senate.

"Evidence from the time" would also 'prove' that the Egyptian pharaohs were also gods.

Yes, "evidence from the time" does prove that the Caesars and the pharaohs were worshiped as gods. I.e., that they had vast power over millions of subjects who were required to bow before them and submit to them and perform rituals to honor them.

More special pleading? Or maybe, as you would put it, "some contemporary pundit's cosmic vibes about what should or should not have happened."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Does anyone have some serious Santa evidence to offer?

No serious example should simply be dismissed. But is this miracle claim/comparison serious, or only for laughs?

Jesus might well be as real as Santa Claus. In both cases, there may be a real person who is the nucleus of the myth; But the modern mythical individual is pure fiction. Nobody has ever made toys at the North Pole, and nobody has ever come back from being dead.

There's a flaw in comparing a serious claim with a non-serious one. And yet, to satisfy the demands of logic, we have to take the comparison seriously:

There are reported cases of dead persons -- i.e., thought to be dead -- coming back to life. The inevitable explanation is that they were not really dead. And yet there's not necessarily a clear explanation in all the reported cases.

Probably none of them are the same as the Jesus Resurrection. And yet it's not certain what the explanation is in all those cases, and there's no biological explanation for the Jesus Resurrection. So it's not correct to simply say "nobody has ever come back from being dead." If someone thinks a particular case was really special, then it should be looked into. There's much about it that's not known. E.g., there are problems defining exactly what is the dividing line between alive and dead, so that there have been some extremely rare mistakes of someone pronounced dead who was not dead.

If the Jesus Resurrection is singular, with no other case of it ever in history, this does not mean it couldn't have happened or has to be impossible. Rather, it means we need the extra sources in order to believe it. We have to discount any such claim if there's only one source, or if the claim originates from centuries later than the event allegedly happened, like almost all ancient miracle claims.

Of course, it's possible that (unlike Santa) there was no one person who formed the foundation of the Jesus myth, in which case . . .

No, the modern Santa myth is a composite of more than only one historical person or legend. It's more than only the historical St. Nicholas character.

. . . in which case Jesus is less real than Santa Claus.

If we go by the facts, there's much more evidence that Jesus was one person in history, at a particular time and location, than there is evidence for St. Nicholas. The evidence for St. Nicholas is much less, but still enough to confirm that he really lived, as an unusual but non-superhuman figure.

But the modern magic Santa figure is impossible to identify with any particular date and location in history. So any claims about proving or disproving him have to first identify when and where he did something in history which was reported, and what the sources are. And since no one seriously ever tries to produce any such sources, the only conclusion must be that it's admittedly fantasy only and thus not comparable to someone identified in history to a particular location and time, based on documents from that period.

But that doesn't change the fact that any adult who believes in either should be deeply embarrassed at their naivety.

It's better to believe or disbelieve based on the evidence rather than embarrassment or fear of being called names by a debunker on a crusade to erase an event from history for which there is evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

mythology/fiction vs. the (probable) facts of history

. . . just the same special pleading nonsense repeated in gish gallop Yee-Haw! form to make it appear as if there is something else going on beside basic mythology.

The basic difference between the Jesus miracles/Resurrection and "mythology" is that for the former there is evidence in the form of documents from the time which report the claimed miracle acts witnessed by observers.

No one has denied that these documents exist or that they are from that time. Rather, the only retort is that these particular documents do not count, or have to be rejected as evidence, even though there are no other such documents rejected as evidence, but just these alone.

No one can give any reason why this is not evidence, and why this does not legitimately distinguish the real events (or possibly real) from the fictional or mythological beliefs/legends.

Of course there is doubt about many of the ancient reported events (maybe most of them), so that even those from the mainline historians may be doubted, but the reported events are mostly accepted as reasonably possible, and are believed to be real events in most cases, or placed into the historical record as probably what happened -- more or less, not necessarily in all details -- unlike the miracle legends of Apollo and Hercules etc., which are put into the "myth" or "fiction" category due to total lack of evidence, or serious evidence, such as reports in written documents from the time the events allegedly happened -- like the Jesus miracle acts reported in written accounts near to the time the events allegedly happened.

There is no binding rule on all humans, imposed by experts/historians/scientists, saying that all miracle claims, or reported miracle events, have to be fiction. Rather, we need evidence for any claimed events, such as written documents from the time which report the events, and for very unusual claims we need extra sources rather than only one.

And the non-believer can be honest in not believing, but it's not honest to say there is not this extra evidence. What the non-believer can say honestly is that this uniquely-extra evidence is still not enough, because the standard for miracle claims is much higher by several factors.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

More evidence = more probable. But "proof" = so much evidence that all doubt is eliminated.

or "proof" = too much evidence, so no more doubt is possible

bottom line: The evidence is that the miracle acts of Jesus really did happen.

You are simply falsely equivocating “evidence” for “proof.”

No, the evidence can be wrong in some cases. It's not proof just because all the existing evidence points in the same direction. There's still much that's not known, so there can still be doubt, and instead there is only reasonable hope, based on the limited evidence.

"The evidence is" that it happened, in the sense that the only evidence we have says this happened and there's no evidence saying it did not happen. But even so, it's not "proof," which would be so much evidence that there can be no reasonable doubt left.

There is no recognized cutoff point between:

1) just a strong case, where there's still doubt, and

2) PROOF which removes all the doubt.

"Proof" doesn't necessarily mean 2 + 2 = 4. It can mean an abundance of empirical evidence which is so great that it's no longer possible to doubt, even though there's a tiny fraction -- .000000001 -- of chance that it's not so. There's no recognized cutoff point how much this tiny fraction is.

So some historical facts are "proved": JFK was assassinated, the 9-11 attack did happen, humans did land on the moon. Etc. For some such facts there is proof, which is more than just saying "the evidence is that . . ."

In normal discourse it's not enough to just say "The evidence is that the moon landing did happen." It's correct, but the truth of this is more than just saying there's evidence. "The evidence" can be that it happened -- i.e., according to the evidence we have it happened -- but it's also possible there's still more evidence which would refute it, but which has not yet been discovered. This is not the case for those facts which are PROVED beyond doubt.

So far the only "evidence" offered to refute the Jesus Resurrection is the dogma that all miracle claims have to be fiction. Or rather, there are no other cases for which there is good evidence, and so that's evidence against this case for which there is evidence. So this one case is refuted by the fact that it's the ONLY case for which there is evidence, and so this evidence is overruled by the more general doctrine that no such event can ever happen because there's no evidence (except this one case) that such a thing ever happened.

That's the only case against the Jesus miracles/Resurrection. I.e., no evidence in this case, but only the broad conclusion from other cases that it can't happen.

So "the evidence" we do have in this case is that it happened. And there aren't any other such cases.

But there is NO PROOF that it did or did not happen.