Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Tell you what, let's start fresh, shall we? I am going to use your own words to properly format your position and then I will assail each point subsequently. So, in full to start with:

I have CONCLUDED that God exists. Concluded means I have researched and reasoned that God exists. For me it's mostly cosmology/math and fine tuning and philosophy. It was not presumed on blind faith as you assume.
...
Since God (given not presumed) exists then miracles are possible.
...
I'm not working backwards by way of presumption.
...
I repeat...I DO NOT PRESUME GOD EXISTS. I HAVE CONCLUDED HE EXISTS. However the reasoning of my conclusion (God's existence) was not the reasoning for my argument that the resurrection was a miracle. They are two different but related arguments and neither is presumed. Neither is blind faith. I have evidence and reasoning for each. And each is reasoning from a different context.

Let's start with your misunderstanding of the word "concluded." It does NOT mean either that you "researched" (whatever the could possibly mean in this context) nor "reasoned" that a god exists. A conclusion is not something you personally arrive at; it is something that objectively follows from truth claims (aka, "premises"). It's not up to your interpretation. It tells YOU what the truth is, not the other way around.

Do you understand that?

So, you claim that have you have "reasoned that God exists" based "mostly" on "cosmology/math and fine tuning and philosophy." The problem with that is that none of those disciplines can possibly prove--i.e., objectively conclude that--a god exists.

Which means, that you cannot have "concluded" that a god exists based on any of those disciplines. So what you mean to say is, you have personally decided to believe that a god exists not that you concluded that a god exists. That is the wrong word for you to use.

Do you understand that? This is not open to debate. You are objectively misusing the word "concluded."

So what does that do to the rest of your position? For that we have to go to your next statement:

Since God (given not presumed) exists then miracles are possible.

But you have not proved that a god exists, you merely hold a belief that one does. So the best you could possible say is that you believe miracles are possible. Not that they are, in fact, possible; merely that you believe they are possible.

You then claim:

However the reasoning of my conclusion (God's existence) was not the reasoning for my argument that the resurrection was a miracle.

Yes, it clearly was:

Since God (given not presumed) exists then miracles are possible.

But as we just established, you have not proved a god exists and can therefore only believe that miracles are possible. So without a god existing, then how could you possibly argue that miracles exist?

You can't. Without a god, there can be no miracles. So your argument regarding a miracle must necessarily entail that a god exists. But you have not proved that god exists; you merely believe that one does.

You then claim:

They are two different but related arguments and neither is presumed. Neither is blind faith. I have evidence and reasoning for each. And each is reasoning from a different context

Ok. So, since you have not proved a god exists and are here forcefully stating that your argument for a miracle is not dependent upon a god existing, what is your evidence that someone resurrected from the dead?

Remember that hearsay/anecdote is NOT evidence of someone resurrecting; it is only evidence that someone thinks that something they can't otherwise explain happened.

And before you claim you've already provided the evidence, stating there is an open tomb is NOT evidence proving someone was resurrected from the dead. Claiming that others believe that's what happened is likewise NOT evidence proving that someone was resurrected from the dead. Claiming that others SAW a body flying off into outer space is NOT evidence proving that someone was resurrected from the dead.

So unless you have OTHER evidence than any of that, you have merely a belief (either in a god or in miracles) and nothing more.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Laundry list of "MESSIAH" claimants

There has to be a REASON WHY someone was called "Messiah" -- We have to ask this for each case.

If it was not unusual, why did writers make him into a miracle-worker and identify him as the messiah?

Here is a list of people who claimed to be or were claimed by others to have been a Jewish messiah:

"by others"? you mean by a half-dozen? In general they were NOT claimed by "others" to be Messiah, but rather to be charlatans.

And not just any "others." In the case of Jesus the "messiah" claim was by educated people at the time, when almost everyone was illiterate -- by 4 (5) educated persons who were serious enough to record it in writing for future generations. At a time when most historical events were not recorded in that many sources. Had it been 1000 years later, it would probably have been written in 50 or 100 sources, or more, and in modern times, in 500 or 1,000 sources, or a lot more.

• Jesus of Nazareth (c. 4 BC – 30/33 AD), leader of a Jewish sect who was crucified by the Romans for sedition and is believed to have been resurrected. Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were originally called Nazarenes and later they were known as Jewish Christians (the first Christians). Muslims and Christians (including Messianic Jews) believe him to be the Messiah.

This is almost the only one listed who was not identified as a fraud in most of the sources we have.

You aren't answering why they believed he was a miracle-worker and had resurrected, and why they identified him as the messiah. And the answer is that he actually did do the miracle acts described in the Gospel accounts. If he did not, we have no explanation why he was depicted as a miracle-worker and as the Jewish messiah.

• Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.

The reason he was believed to be the Messiah (for a while) is that he was a charismatic leader who led a Jewish revolt against Rome and won some battles, having gained a large following, before Romans arrived in sufficient force to put down the revolt.

Such charisma and military victory, though short-lived, and such political impact and disruption toward those in power, inspires the followers and gains recognition, explaining the "messiah" title, before his cause was crushed. However, the same explanation does not apply to the case of Jesus in the Gospels, who had no military victories or political influence on events during his life. Why was Jesus acclaimed as "messiah"? There's no answer, unless he did those miracle acts.

• Moses of Crete, who in about 440–470 persuaded the Jews of Crete to walk into the sea, as Moses had done, to return to Israel. The results were disastrous and he soon disappeared.

The only claim that he was the messiah is presumably that of the direct followers/disciples, not anyone reporting the event. None of our sources about it claim that he was any messiah or miracle-worker.

Our question is why Jesus was widely proclaimed and reported in our sources as the messiah and credited with performing the miracle acts, including the Resurrection. How is this answered with a comparison to someone who all the sources say was a fraud?

• Ishak ben Ya'kub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani (684–705), who led a revolt in Persia against the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.

There are militant political agitators here and there, like this one who attracted a dozen followers, or maybe 200-300 or so, and inflicted some damage before the caliph sent forces to crush him and his followers. With charisma it's possible for the crusader to win some disciples who declare him a "messiah" and support his rebellion. Though there are hints of a miracle or two, there's no testimony to this from any writers, or from any written record of him. If the revolt is large enough to attract a major military force to put it down, it means the leader had unusual charismatic impact, to attract a following, and among these there are some who call him "messiah."

We can assume that an ability to attract militant followers and lead a military revolt can result in one being labeled a "messiah" by some of those followers, for a short time, until he's killed or the revolt is crushed.

But nothing explains why Jesus, who led no military revolt, was called "messiah," especially after his death. A list of militant political agitators is irrelevant to answer this.

• David Alroy, born in Kurdistan, who around 1160 agitated against the caliph before being assassinated.

For this one perhaps there are miracle claims, in a written account near to the time, but there's only this one source. As we move closer to modern times and the increase in publishing, we begin to encounter miracle claims for which there is more serious evidence, with sources closer to the alleged event. If there were 2 or 3 other serious sources for David Alroy, near to the alleged events in the 12th century, the claims might have credibility.

If it were today, an agitator like this might have a few blogs or web pages, and some tweets would acclaim him as "messiah," so there might be a few sources. But there'd also be a dozen more condemning him as a charlatan. 2000 years ago he probably would have been ignored completely, with nothing recorded, totally forgotten.

• Moses Botarel of Cisneros, active around 1413; claimed to be a sorcerer able to combine the names of God.

For this one the word "miracle" is used, and there are some claims, but there is really no miracle act attributed to him. He claims to communicate to some ancient prophets, or induce "prophetic dreams," but there's no "miracle" other than the words only, i.e., no actual act by him other than just a claim to perform these invisible prophetic communications. If no actual act happens, something seen or heard or felt, demonstrating anything, but only a "dream" or claim of contact with a prophet, then what is the miracle act? Anyone can claim they're communicating to an unseen "prophet" in the ether somewhere. You could claim to communicate to Napoleon or George Washington or other historical figure. Or to Granny Goose.

The Jesus acts were observable events where someone was healed, the blind received their sight, or lepers were cured -- they became healthy, and observers saw it. The dead were resurrected. Something good happened which was witnessed, a cured victim experienced the change. But if all we're told is that the miracle-worker is "communicating with Elijah" and that's all, what is the tangible benefit? or what is the good thing happening that is being witnessed?

He must have had a strong personality to impress people in some way to cause them to accept his claim of having these communications. The disciples of Gautama believed their Teacher achieved his state of Enlightenment, but what actually did he do when he rose to this higher state? If the "miracle" is nothing more than just words, like "Enlightenment" or "prophetic dreams," etc., then it only means that the guru is a good poet, and good speaker, who can mesmerize his listeners with a pleasant voice.

For some gurus perhaps this was their talent. But those who wrote the Gospels were not mesmerized by the voice of Jesus, because they did not hear him directly, or experience his charisma. They had reports about him, not his voice or his personality to influence them. So, why did these educated persons record this for us, in written documents, such as we don't have for anyone else at the time? Why was this one only called "messiah" in so many written accounts, and credited with doing miracle acts, such we have for no other case?

• Asher Lämmlein, a German near Venice who proclaimed himself a forerunner of the Messiah in 1502.

He made prophecies which didn't come true, and his disciples abandoned him. In some cases like this a pundit is believed for a time, because of his charisma, but when he's disproved by events he's recognized as a fraud. For a short time someone thinks he's "the messiah," but when he fails or is proved wrong, it's over. This should have happened to Jesus, when he was killed. But instead, the belief that he was the messiah increased. Why don't we have other cases of a "messiah" who continued to be believed even after being killed, for whom the number of believers greatly increased? He must have done something to cause that belief, and this belief continued even though he was killed. Being killed did not erase whatever it was he did, and did not disprove him or prove him to be a failure or fraud, as in all the other cases.

• David Reubeni (1490–1541?) and Solomon Molcho (1500–1532), messianic adventurers who travelled in Portugal, Italy and Turkey; Molcho, who was a baptised Catholic, was tried by the Inquisition, convicted of apostasy and burned at the stake.

There's little indication that anyone took these two as "messiah" figures. Just because Molcho claimed to be the "messiah" doesn't mean he had followers who believed it. So it's not clear that he should be on a list of persons believed by followers to be "messiah."

Perhaps he won some admiration for his refusal to renounce his claims, to escape his execution. Some "martyrs" like this, offered clemency if they would recant, gain recognition from a few who admire them for their defiance. E.g., Socrates drinking the hemlock.

• Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676), an Ottoman Jew who claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam; still has followers today in the Dönmeh.

The reason a few believed he was the "messiah" is that he was charismatic and was good at practicing fraud, using a forged document, combined with some serious knowledge as a Jewish scholar, so that he succeeded in impressing and duping a few naive messianic believers. But there were far more who condemned him as a fraud than who recognized him as "messiah":

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13480-shabbethai-zebi-b-mordecai
Though only twenty-two years old, he dared (in the ominous year 1648) to reveal himself at Smyrna to a band of followers (whom he had won over through his cabalistic knowledge, his attractive appearance and personality, and his strange actions) as the true Messianic redeemer designated by God to overthrow the governments of the nations and to restore Israel to Jerusalem. His mode of revealing his mission was the pronouncing of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew, an act which was allowed only to the high priest in the Sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. This was of great significance to those acquainted with rabbinical and especially cabalistic literature. However, Shabbethai's authority at the age of twenty-two did not reach far enough to gain for him many adherents.

So this character was rejected by a large number, while gaining acceptance by only a few.

Our question is why Jesus was recognized as "messiah" in so many written sources during his time, but was not condemned as a charlatan, as the above character was, and was not a successful political or military figure.

There are reasons why some messiah-pretender characters in history were able to win some followers, through talent and trickery, but these same ones are more generally condemned as frauds by the majority of those knowing of them. All our sources about Jesus in the 1st century say he was the "messiah" and performed miracle acts, which is not the case for any other "messiah" examples on this list, so it's not clear what point is served by this list.

• Jacob Querido (?–1690), claimed to be the new incarnation of Sabbatai; later converted to Islam and led the Dönmeh.

He succeeded the previous charlatan, practicing similar frauds of his own in order to win acceptance.

Why a half-dozen or so followers might have called him "messiah" (maybe 2 or 3 dozen idiots -- however many) could be explained by the success of his predecessor, who had many talents, plus the fraud, plus also by the fact that there is a market out there for a Jewish cult with members converting to Islam and becoming a kind of combination of the two -- i.e., Jewish Muslims, or Islamic Jews. If there's a demand, there will be a supply, for virtually anything.

Jesus in the 1st century might also be explained as answering to a demand -- however, what we have in his case is a written record, from the time, attesting to his miracle acts and recognizing him as "messiah" while there is no other source identifying him as a charlatan, as most sources recognize both Querido and Sabbatai Zevi, who deceived a small group of impressionable idiots in search of a cause. Whatever written record there is for these and other messiah-pretenders of this period, it is mostly negative, denouncing them as charlatans, explaining and rejecting their messiah claims as due to fraud.

• Miguel Cardoso (1630–1706), another successor of Sabbatai who claimed to be the "Messiah ben Ephraim".

More of the same fraud and charlatanry, except that in this case the "messiah" seems to have won NO followers who believed he was this "Messiah ben Ephraim."

The question is why Jesus was recognized as "messiah" -- but this particular analogy is a case of a would-be messiah not recognized as "messiah" by anyone other than himself.

This list of would-be messiahs is making less and less sense. What is the point of these meaningless names?

• Löbele Prossnitz (?–1750), attained some following amongst former followers of Sabbatai, calling himself the "Messiah ben Joseph".

Why did some followers recognize him has "messiah"? Perhaps they were just fun-lovers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Leib_Prossnitz
One night he promised to summon the Shekhina to appear at midnight in a large gathering. Prossnitz stretched across his room a perforated curtain, behind which he had secretly lighted a mixture of alcohol and turpentine. He himself, robed in white, stood behind the curtain, and the light brought out in full relief the gilt letters of the Tetragrammaton, which he had placed on his breast. The spectators were disposed to believe in a miracle, when someone present, (Jacob Emden believes it to be the rabbi), pulled down the curtain and exposed the fraud. Prossnitz was excommunicated by the rabbis of Moravia, among them the "Landrabbiner" David Oppenheim.

Even so, he won some followers. We can assume he had some other good tricks which maybe were more successful.

Again, most of the sources about him report him as a phony fraud, not as "messiah." Examples like these give us no explanation why Jesus was reported in the sources as "messiah" and miracle-worker, while there's no written account indicating otherwise, such as all the other "messiah" cases which are mostly rejected as fraudulent in the available sources.

• Jacob Joseph Frank (1726–1791), who claimed to be the reincarnation of King David and preached a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism.

Similar to the demand for an Islamic-Jewish cult, there was also a demand for a Christian-Jewish cult. These are obviously fringe cases. But Jesus in 30 AD was not the product of a fringe cult. All fringe cults were rejected by the general population, as they are today, with the exception that today such cults win some publicity in the mass media and so are able to publish their propaganda and win 100 followers rather than only a dozen. Whereas in the 1st century AD there was not the publishing media necessary for fringe cults to gain any traction. They were all forgotten, leaving little or no trace. Unlike the 1st-century Christ communities based on real events recognized widely enough and reported by enough witnesses that they had to be taken seriously and reported in written accounts.


Neither of the following really claimed to be "messiah." But in both cases they were highly-regarded Jewish teachers/activists who won admirers over their long careers, and M. M. Schneersohn spoke so much about "messiah" that some admirers wanted to put this label on him, but he rejected those sentiments. The reason both of these were called "messiah" by their admirers is obviously due to their distinguished careers and charisma and not to their own claim.

• Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (r. 1920 - 1950), sixth rebbe (spiritual leader) of Chabad Lubavitch, claimed to be "Atzmus u'mehus alein vi er hat zich areingeshtalt in a guf" (Yiddish and English for: "Essence and Existence [of God] which has placed itself in a body"), and to be the Messiah.

Claimed by followers, yes, but Yosef Schneersohn himself never claimed to be "messiah."

• Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1994), seventh rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch, claimed to be the Messiah by his followers.

The case of Jesus in 30 AD cannot be compared to either of these, because his public career was at most 3 years, so it was impossible in such a short time to establish a reputation such as these recent recognized Jewish leaders established over their long lives.

It is easy to explain how someone of wide repute and recognized for accomplishments would be claimed by some followers as "messiah," but most Jews did not make such claims about either of the above, and some emphatically rejected such claims.

That just a list of people claiming to be Jewish messiahs.

Not all of them claimed to be. But what matters is that Jesus was recognized by educated writers to be "messiah," and we cannot explain why he gained this recognition (if he didn't do the miracle acts). Whereas we can explain why the others listed were recognized as "messiah," for their accomplishments over a long career, or why others gained a small following while being exposed as charlatans in the sources we have about them.

On the list above, only the first one, Jesus in 30 AD, cannot be explained, as to why he was called "messiah" (if he did not do the miracle acts). All the others on the list can be explained as a product of normal mythologizing. Or, in all the other cases above, there were more reports/sources saying the person was NOT "messiah" than saying he was, and so the list is irrelevant.

There's a whole host of Buddha claimants and people claiming to be the so-called "second coming" of Jesus as well as Muslim claimants.

If this list had anything important in it, one name on the list, the best example, would be offered in detail for making the point, showing e.g. the miracle acts performed and the sources from the time reporting it. Probably every one on the list was a talented charismatic who had a long career influencing listeners who were in need of a guru to inspire them. Nothing like this explains why Jesus was acclaimed "messiah" by the apostle Paul and the Gospel writers, who were not directly influenced by him, i.e., by his personality or charisma.

Meaningless lists like these don't answer the question: Why do we have a written record of the miracles of Jesus, from 4 (5) different sources, from educated persons of the time, attesting to his acts, but we have no other written record of any reputed miracle-worker of those times. And why do all our sources about him identify him as "messiah," but there is no one else identified in the written record of the time as being "messiah"?

It's not about messiah "claimants" but about others claiming he was "messiah," for which there is no explanation, unless he did the miracle acts.

Your myth isn't in any way special or unique.

translation: all miracle claims must be fiction, regardless of the evidence in some cases, or regardless of reports saying the miracle events happened.

You know this, which is why you are going to such extreme lengths to pretend otherwise.

translation: stop insisting that the facts matter, and submit to the politically-correct dogma that ALL miracle claims must be fiction, regardless of any evidence or facts.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Translation: I will torture logic and language and utterly destroy the word "evidence" in order to keep my pet beliefs.

 

[Rhea]

You obviously made it up.
You lied and inferred it was my reasoning.
You were completely dishonest there.

Hi.
I would just like to know how someone can lie by making an inference.
Thank you.

 

[remez]

This FIRST….Remember I presented the RA in the context that God’s existence was reasonable. Therefore miracles (my definition) are possible/reasonable. So the challenge was clarified to …..How would I then reason that the resurrection was a miracle and did not have a better natural explanation? I began to make a case for that in the context the miracles were reasonable, after all my conclusion was a miracle. That is how I began. You changed to context to God’s existence is unreasonable. Thus forcing me back to the beginning. I have stated from the beginning I would not present the RA (abductive historical argument) to prove God’s existence. I would need first present the KCA (my fave) to first establish the reasonableness of God’s existence. Thereby establishing the reasonableness of miracles. Thereby ready to present the RA as an argument as to why the event of the resurrection was indeed miraculous. I explained this back in 290 and 292.

No. I have been trying to explain how evidence and credence should work in assessing various proposition related to the resurrection claim. But you have been unwilling to touch this subject. Because you have four "facts" and you are damn sure these witnesses were real people and that they could not have lied.

So specific to that quote……..
I have been trying to do the same. I’m reasonably certain that these people did exist and that they did not lie. In your next to last post, for the first time since we began, you finally challenged specifically one of the four points of the RA. I can easily address and defend that non-supernatural premise #3,
But……
What’s the use (right now) of defending the premises if you removed the possibility/reasonableness of my conclusion? Forcing me to first address the reasonableness of EoG.

That's what I thought. You don't actually have any evidence to support the Jesus resurrection story. And you have nothing to rebut my argument that a naturalistic explanation is more probable than a supernatural explanation.

I did. I gave you an argument to refute. You only offered people “make things up”. I repeatedly showed you that your reasoning as stated was self-refuting….(posts 258,269,329) It needed to be qualified. Any qualification you would allow, would also debatably re-qualify the Gospels and Epistles, and other ancient literature. I’m still waiting on your clarification to make that case. You could not go that deep.

But here you are, seemingly a layperson in this field of study, and you have studied all the cosmological models out there,

Not all, I’m sure. But of all I have studied, it is far more reasonable to conclude that the universe began to exist. By universe I mean the entirety to the physical space-time continuum, all space, matter, time, and energy, all of nature. Thus nature began to exist. Its cause therefore must reasonably be beyond nature, meaning supernatural.
Now…….
If you can provide a tenable model that restores the eternal past of the universe then reasonably I would need to repent from this line of reasoning.

So…
Am I absolutely certain?
NO.

But I’m well within the mainstream of reason to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe began to exist.

Just to head off IDKism before anyone starts. IDKism (it’s better to conclude ignorance because there is no absolute certainty) is for me an unreasonable position to espouse. Because to stay ignorant by volitional choice in the face of such reasonable evidence is to bury your head in the sand.

and you have figured out stuff that no senior researcher with decades of specialized knowledge and experience in this field has been able to figure out.

Science vs philosophy. We are talking self-creation theories here. We are talking blatant self-defeating theories here. Logically impossible theories. Bury your head in the sand theories. Yes I’m prepared to go there. Science is great….I totally embrace it……but it is philosophy that better governs knowledge. To argue the reverse would only make my case. Science is limited to nature….and nature needs a cause. Thus reasoning does not stop at nature. See the issue?

That God created the universe. And you are sure about this. What incredible hubris!

Yes I have good reasons (supported by science) to trust that God created the universe. Again I’m not absolutely certain.

I never asked you to just believe me……. How brilliant…….to use your laziness in research to infer I’m just asking you to believe me. Shall we postpone the sarcasm as well? Fair?

Postpone the sarcasm? No.

No?.......Ok…………..

You made a naked assertion. When called out on it, you ask us to google it. Yup....

Consider my response in the context of you sarcastically inferring my ignorance and then asking me such an easy question of research.

Since you could not do it yourself here…………..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great
I’m now sure you can do the math.

further….
If the Bible counts then you have a very interesting prophesy to contend with in Daniel chapter 8 verses 5-8 and 21-22. Too bad it doesn’t count.

 

[remez]

No it doesn't. That's an effort to keep the discussion up in the clouds, to avoid the details of the mythology.

atrib's question to Learner was: "My question relates to why YOU find the Jesus miracle stories to be convincing."

Here's more contextual background:

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

This line of inquiry goes past EoG, to the details of the mythology. Tales of Jesus aren't different from other mythological tales just because it seems reasonable to believers that God exists.

Your answer, "If its reasonable that God exists then it reasonable miracles are possible", was such a trivial observation that it illuminated nothing at all. So going back to EoG would go on illuminating nothing at all. Probably everyone here is thoroughly familiar with that lipstick on a pig of an argument that is the KCA.

That God makes miracles possible does not explain why any sensible person would believe specifically the miracles and other tales in the Bible. That some medieval thinkers, under the influence of Greek thought, came along and tagged "transcendent" onto this mythic tribal creature, and not onto other mythic creatures, does not make Jehovah more plausible than them.

So, the questions that need answering a LONG time ago, are ones along these lines:

What is it in the miracles of the Gospels themselves that make them so reasonable to believe? A godman is tortured and murdered as a human sacrifice. This scapegoating is to redeem select bits of humanity. Etc. What makes such things sensible/reasonable/plausible? The answer is not "If a transcendent personal creator God exists, then that specific weird shit (among all the world's weird shit) follows".

You're the theist who stepped forward to answer why Christian mythology is more reasonable to believe than other mythologies and fairy tales. So, you give the details because the theist explanations and theist details go hand-in-hand.

Before I parse your response. Here is the message of your post, as a wrongfully interpreted it.

You assert that I’m trying to shift to the KCA by presenting the lame excuse that the context shifted. You then make your case for what the real context was and then challenged me to address the context as you saw it.

IS that better?

Parsed…..

We would first need explore the reasonability of God’s existence long before the RA. I explained all this earlier.

Does that make sense?

No it doesn't. That's an effort to keep the discussion up in the clouds, to avoid the details of the mythology.

Go back and read 258, 269 and 329.
then
Reason through the context with me here…..

atrib's question to Learner was: "My question relates to why YOU find the Jesus miracle stories to be convincing."

Here's more contextual background:

…. Further….

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?

When you are talking about Jesus you are talking about Christianity, about EoG. Think about it. Hence my response was If God’s exists and created the universe then miracles are possible/reasonable. So right there we can begin to treat them differently. He agreed with me.

But further I set up….
How do we determine if an event is better explained by miracle or natural explanation?
I presented the RA to begin the discussion to that challenge.
Now……….
If I were challenged to provide reasoning for God’s existence I would not present the RA.

Think it through. I presented that reasoning as well back in post 290 and 292.

This line of inquiry goes past EoG, to the details of the mythology. Tales of Jesus aren't different from other mythological tales just because it seems reasonable to believers that God exists.

It totally depends on the EoG and of course they are different. No one has ever reasonably presented a case that tooth fairies created the universe.

Your answer, "If its reasonable that God exists then it reasonable miracles are possible", was such a trivial observation that it illuminated nothing at all.

Trivial how?

Remember part of the challenge was to distinguish Jesus from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

If a God that created the universe exists then Jesus’ miracles would be reasonable as opposed to the tooth fairy or Santa Claus being reasonable.

So if my statement addresses that questioned distinction, why is it trivial?

I don’t get you.

So going back to EoG would go on illuminating nothing at all.

My RA was provided in that context (EoG) as a given. That context was since shifted back a level where I’m assuming EoG, thus forcing me to provide the reasoning for EoG, before I can go on defending the RA.

Probably everyone here is thoroughly familiar with that lipstick on a pig of an argument that is the KCA.

I hear your fear.
But
Here is where it gets surreal………

That God makes miracles possible does not explain why any sensible person would believe specifically the miracles and other tales in the Bible.

And that is EXACTLY why I offered the RA. Right there. Note your given context and your challenge is exactly the same one we began with. Talk about full circle. You brought it right back to exactly where I began. There’s a hole in the bucket, Dear Liza.

But should I attempt to address your challenge in your given context, I’m declared to be irrational because I’m assuming God exists. That is precisely what you did to me in this thread.

That some medieval thinkers, under the influence of Greek thought, came along and tagged "transcendent" onto this mythic tribal creature, and not onto other mythic creatures, does not make Jehovah more plausible than them.

Translated…….just because God has evidence and other mythical creatures do not, abaddon is justified to reason by insult.

What is it in the miracles of the Gospels themselves that make them so reasonable to believe?

What is IT in the miracles of the GOSPELS…..ummmmmm…..I would have to say........GOD

How can you tell me that I’m all wrong about the context and then bring it all right back to the exact context we began with?

God’s existence is in the Gospels. That is what is in the Gospels that makes the miracles reasonable. Again that is same reasoning I provided to atrib. It was so trivial you missed it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzm9urjQbWU

 

[remez]

withdrawn

 

[abaddon]

No one has ever reasonably presented a case that tooth fairies created the universe.

But they could if there were a medieval theological tradition about fairies, where contriving definitions for contrived beings to get the wanted conclusion, God or whatever other mythic creature, serves as the explanation to anything.

My point has been this: There's no explaining the purported miracles in and of themselves except with the irrational impulses of magical thinking. Magical thinking goes like this: 'If we slaughter an animal or person as an offering it'll propitiate the deity'. That is extremely recognizably the logic of dreams and psychedelia, not of reason. And it is the logic of your favorite miracle. You can't answer to this because your brain doesn't pay attention to this level of detail. It prefers your "If God then anything, but particularly my wish fulfillment fantasy" level of abstraction (of avoidance of the kind of detail that I just pointed out again).

 

[skepticalbip]

No one has ever reasonably presented a case that tooth fairies created the universe.

But they could if there were a medieval theological tradition about fairies, where contriving definitions for contrived beings to get the wanted conclusion, God or whatever other mythic creature, serves as the explanation to anything.

My point has been this: There's no explaining the purported miracles in and of themselves except with the irrational impulses of magical thinking. Magical thinking goes like this: 'If we slaughter an animal or person as an offering it'll propitiate the deity'. That is extremely recognizably the logic of dreams and psychedelia, not of reason. And it is the logic of your favorite miracle. You can't answer to this because your brain doesn't pay attention to this level of detail. It prefers your "If God then anything, but particularly my wish fulfillment fantasy" level of abstraction (of avoidance of the kind of detail that I just pointed out again).

Yes, fairies are real for those who believe in fairies. Not so much for those who don't. It takes faith and belief in magic... some have it... some don't.

This is the problem for theist apologists. They really believe that their belief in magic and their faith can be explained rationally. Fortunately for us, most theists know better.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I presented the RA in the context that God’s existence was reasonable.

What you just said is: I assumed a God existed and worked backward from there. In effect, not literally. Literally what you just said was a tautology; something is reasonable so long as something is reasonable.

You don't get to do that. That is not how logic or reason works. You must PROVE that a god exists. Then and only then could you possibly have any "context" at all in order to further PROVE that such a god has the power to resurrect dead people and THEN you must PROVE that this same god resurrected someone named Jesus some two thousand years ago.

PROOF does not mean simply forming words on a page. You must have evidence: physical evidence, qualified experts, AND numerous independently verified, unbiased, eyewitness accounts from people whose names are actually known and preserved.

Not just ONE of those things, but ALL of those things.

You have NONE of that. None.

What you have are the beliefs of a cult at best. You have a fantastical story--evidently told and retold orally for decades--about a charismatic preacher that supposedly lived, taught and was killed by the Romans some unknown number of decades earlier than when the story was first written down.

That's it. That is the full extent of the "evidence" you have, which is nothing. It doesn't even rise to the lowest standard of evidence, which is hearsay and it's not admissible in a court of law. I will repeat that. It is HEARSAY and not admissible.

But even if we accept it purely as anecdote, its providence cannot be established, verified or trusted; there are at least three other versions of the story that directly contradict each other and from equally unknown, non-verified authors; we know that the versions of the stories have all been tampered with in various ways over the years by subsequent copyists and church leaders, to the point where certain whole books were just tossed aside as non "canon" because, in their estimation, the books weren't telling the right "official" story; the stories all depict verbatim conversations and describe events that none of the authors could have heard or experienced first hand; they relate events--like Pilate committing treason at the festival by first letting a convicted seditionist leader and murderer of Roman soldiers and citizens go free, while at the same time ordering a man he found not-guilty be tortured and murdered all to please the conquered populous he was there to subjugate--that could not possibly have happened, setting aside the notion that anyone resurrected from the dead or could heal the sick or drive non-existent demons into pigs; etc., etc., etc.

But even if you had independent verification and knew the names and addresses of every author you STILL would only have a collection of contradictory stories from just a handful of people at best.

There are more people who have witnessed what they believe to be a bigfoot than we have claiming to have witnessed what would be, if true, the single most important event in all of the universe for all time.

And as I wrote that sentence, I could actually hear your brains getting triggered. Which proves it all to be a cult, because a real event of such a magnitude would never be relegated to faith. Which is why the whole idea of "faith" was created to begin with.

You want to have it both ways. You want the event to be so important that it actually happened while at the same time so important that it can't be proved to have actually happened and one must simply believe that it happened on faith alone.

But then you guys come here and start desperately torturing logic and language to try to convince yourselves that you're not just believing in Santa Claus because you want to believe in Santa Claus. You lie and shuck and jive and take a five hundred pound hammer to that square peg but no matter how hard you hit it, it's never going to fit in a round hole.

Never.

But you think if you can just lodge it in there kind of slanty then that's good enough and you can sleep at night thinking that you've "proved" your idiotic beliefs, but, of course, you haven't. We tell you this and the whole fucking thing starts all over again.

You're Sisyphus on Atheist Hill.

 

[PinesRCW]

Currently being a resident of the uninhabitable planet Choke-gag4 and necessarily being dead, I measured the properties of the Universe and found I found they were unsuitable tuned for my existence. I therefore conclude there was 0% chance of God. Pass this around to all Earthlings so they'll stop wasting their Sundays.

 

[PinesRCW]

You are overthinking this. Add faith sufficient to believe whatever you want. Go forth and multiply or do whatever math suits your fancy.

 

[atrib]

You changed to context to God’s existence is unreasonable.

No I didn't. That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position, something you do often. In this discussion with you, the only thing I have focused on is the credibility of the proposition that Jesus's corpse was resurrected, and the evidence to support this proposition. My focus was deliberately limited to the scope of the topic of this thread, which is "Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles". Did you even know what the topic of this thread is?

You have repeatedly attempted to muddy the waters by introducing various strawman arguments, like "you don't understand what a miracle is", "you think I am arguing that since the miracles happened, therefore god exists". You also attempted to make an argument that involved four unsupported premises you referred to as "facts". But you never presented the argument in full form. Our loss.

I did. I gave you an argument to refute. You only offered people “make things up”. I repeatedly showed you that your reasoning as stated was self-refuting….(posts 258,269,329) It needed to be qualified. Any qualification you would allow, would also debatably re-qualify the Gospels and Epistles, and other ancient literature. I’m still waiting on your clarification to make that case. You could not go that deep.

I have explained my argument to you at least half a dozen times. You have never responded to my argument: that there is an enormous volume of high quality evidence to support the naturalistic proposition that humans make up stories, and none to support the proposition that corpses can be reanimated after days of mortality. The evidence supports my position that a naturalistic origin to the story is more probable than what you are proposing. You have never so much as acknowledged this argument. This could be because you are a moron who cannot read. Or it could be that you are clueless as to how truth claims are assessed by scientists and historians (yes, the principles are the same, and grounded on some sort of probabilistic analysis using what we know about the claim). Or it could be that you know all this but are just fucking dishonest.

Then there are other things you have ignored. Like my question about how you are able to seek out and reliably assess supernatural claims, since naturalism is not a sound epistemological foundation. After you made such a big deal about ontologies being founded on naturalistic assumptions being wrong. Or the fact that the context of the resurrection, that entire god being a loving father who wants to save all his human children, and thus he has to sacrifice his only cloned son to a horrible death to save us, is absurd.

But here you are, seemingly a layperson in this field of study, and you have studied all the cosmological models out there,

Not all, I’m sure. But of all I have studied, it is far more reasonable to conclude that the universe began to exist. By universe I mean the entirety to the physical space-time continuum, all space, matter, time, and energy, all of nature. Thus nature began to exist. Its cause therefore must reasonably be beyond nature, meaning supernatural.
Now…….
If you can provide a tenable model that restores the eternal past of the universe then reasonably I would need to repent from this line of reasoning.

So…
Am I absolutely certain?
NO.

You haven't done the work. There is only so much you can pick up by reading popular science websites and books. If you really want to understand how different cosmological models work, you have to understand the mathematical foundation, because that is everything. The devil really is in the details. You can't really understand general relativity without first understanding how the geometry of spacetime is described, something even Einstein had a lot of trouble with. You can't really understand cosmic inflation without understanding the stuff that gives rise to the horizon problem and the smoothness problem. You apparently haven't done your due diligence here, because you are so much smarter than all the scientists who are actually doing the work.

But let us set aside the fact that you haven't actually done the work that would have led you to reach any useful conclusion about a question as difficult as the origin of the universe. Lets focus what you have claimed to have concluded, that the universe began to exist. Technically, that is not correct. We can only rewind our model of the visible universe down to a point in time at which our models (general relativity, quantum gravity - pick your poison) no longer work. We can't describe the state of our universe at this point in time, or extrapolate further back in time. We don't even know if there was a before. What we can hypothesize is that the visible universe that is available to our eyes and instruments today likely originated at this point in time, but no more.

Next, you hypothesize, nay, CONCLUDE, that Biblegod created the universe. Presumably because the universe could not have arisen out of nothing. Am I right? So then, did this god create the universe out of nothing? And if so, how did he do that, if he had nothing to work with? And besides, doesn't god need some kind of space to exist in? Even if he is just pure energy, this energy would have to be contained in some some type of spacetime constinuum, just as we exist within the visible universe. So logically, for your god hypothesis to make sense, it is impossible that nothing existed before the Big Bang moment. At a minimum, there was a god cocooned inside some kind of spacetime continuum.

We can also deduce from the assertion that god does stuff like create the universe, that god is subject to time. Not a hair can move on god's head, or an electron pass through what is presumably god's brain without the passage of time. Because for change to occur time needs to elapse. More importantly, god is subject to the arrow of time. Or as an undergraduate engineering student who is taking thermo 1 for the first time would likely refer to it, entropy. How the fuck does god combat the effects of entropy? Because if this god has existed for an infinite amount of time (has always existed, never needed to be created blah blah blah Christian apologetics), god is a perpetual motion machine that never winds down. And as any good physicist will tell you, PPMs don't exist because they cannot exist. Everything runs down. So how does your conclusion address the arrow of time? Care to tell us and show your work?

Of course, you are not going to show us your work. Because you haven't done the work.

Consider my response in the context of you sarcastically inferring my ignorance and then asking me such an easy question of research.

Sarcasm is an appropriate response to your behavior. I am also tempted to call you some choice names at this point but that is prohibited by the forum rules.

 

[remez]

atrib

There was a wealth of material to address in your last post.
But
This post is only about the context that God’s existence was granted/assumed for sake of conversation and questioning your direction from here.

Please be fair.

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

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

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

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

But

Make no mistake, I’m ready to go. Regardless of your twisted restrictions on “doing the work.”

SO……….. Because your last post was going in both directions I would like to focus specifically on one at a time.


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

Your call.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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

Please be fair.

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

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

 

[skepticalbip]

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

Please be fair.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Learner]

Nope. Not what I said.
I said your Jesus story is not unique. It’s just like all the other messiah stories of the time and is not more believable than any of them.

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

No idea what you are talking about with Chinese calendars. Are you chinese? Do you use one regularly?

My point is, we can have access to calenders i.e. get a perspective of how they did it in those times. Funny enough but no coincidence. Just to mention,the ancient Chinese like the ancient Hebrews (and pretty much most, if not all the ancients) used the "luni-Solar" system.

My point is that 3pm Friday to sometime before Dawn Sunday is not 3 days. It is 40 hours at the most and for all you know could be as few as 2 since you have no idea at all how long a person behind a stone remains unconscious (Schroedinger’s Jesus?). “Three days” is 24 hours times 3. That is 72 hours. Not 40 hours. Even by Jewish standards, it is not 3 days.

If your kid leaves the house on Friday after school and says “I’ll be back in 3 days,” she does not return before dawn on Sunday. Likewise, if your kid leaves Friday after school and says, “I’ll be back before dawn on Sunday!” But instead comes home 3 days later, you’ll be quite anxious.

This is obvious to the most casual observer. I’m surprised you need me to explain it to you.

They call it “on the third day” but since modern non-jews don’t talk like that, and you know they don’t, your use of it is simply to make it sound like longer than it was. You are embellishing the tale - just like the original authors did in many additional ways. You are Paul Bunyon-ing your tale. Not a good look for Jesus, though, Schroedinger’s Jesus or the regular kind.

You are correct here by this very particular explanation or understanding in this "modern" view but ... it is not accurate to what Jesus said which is the bit that you (plural) keep missing: He said He would be back AFTER "three days and nights". Its still debated on of course to be fair (perhaps those who think its an argument) but.... 3 days and 3 nights does not mean less than 72 hours, a FLAWED notion imo.

Not forgetting...


There was no such thing as Friday and Sunday (as I was previously trying to point out) back then with the ancient Jews / Hebrews, for example the Sabbath never fell exactly on the 7th day in the Julian OR Gregorian system like in use today.. The full moon WAS the actual first day of the month. There have been erroneous comparisons which understandably causes confusion like your one & a half days with the introduction of Friday by some past scholar(s) (probably a non theist lol) being the day of Crucifixion, whereas there are people who argue that Wednsday is the more likely and logical, in view of the "3 days and nights" .

I didn't want to bother into moving from the previous discussion with a "who had it worse" (was a little lazy tbh).

Did you anticipate I would "dismiss" such things, even the two men to either side of Jesus who were also crucified and the whole big history of many many atrocities and harm around the earth?

Of course you don’t want to talk about “who had it worse,” you just want to proclaim that this sacrifice was somehow epic and world-changing and incredibly “generous” without comparing it to other MUCH more significant sacrifices. You want to call it an incredible sacrifice and have everyone treat it as such without ever comparing it to any other sacrifice. You want to just assert this one is the biggest.

Of course you do. That’s what Christians do.

I simply mean, I'd rather not "deflect" away from your Jesus theory ... more of the timing really.

The topic for "Who suffers the most", we can do too, no problems from this end.

You were using Thomas as an argument to how people back then were aware of bullshit. I was saying there was a lot of bs claims and a lot of people believed in them. They were cheap and easy. You said Thomas’ doubt proves that people were thinking. I do not dispute that some were more gullible than others, same as today.

So there were lots of cheap miracles. Lots of people believed them. Some people were skeptical at first and fell for it later. Some people never fell for it. Your Jesus story includes all of these. None of them make your story more believable. More people are skeptical today than were then, in part because of how much better secular science has made people view the reality of the world around us, like actual death and the “resurrections” that are actually just mistaken death not actual death.

The fact remains that the most likely explanation for this “resurection,” if it even happened, is that the person in the crypt was never actually dead. THAT happens a lot and even moreso back then when they weren’t very good at establishing actual death.

Even if we were to say that it WAS only "one and a half days," ,much less than 3 days to recover from such physical trauma ; then you and Koyyan with the explanation theory "Jesus never really died", would then need to rethink miracle for sure, or there is some explanation about those seemingly magical potent herbs that exceeds our modern medicines... for Jesus or anyone (more than one claim) to walk about bandaged-free in just "one and a half days" Or you've (plural) not thought it through enough, certainly not an argument I'd use if I was a non-theist today.



Sorry been really busy to respond a little sooner

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Comas can last a few days or a few weeks or a few years. Note also the following:

During a coma, a person does not react to external stimuli and they will not show normal reflex responses....Depending on the cause and the extent of damage, a coma can occur rapidly or gradually, and it can last from several days to several years, though most last from days to weeks.
...
A person who is experiencing a coma cannot be awakened, and they do not react to the surrounding environment. They do not respond to pain, light, or sound in the usual way, and they do not make voluntary actions.

Iow, they would appear to be dead to just about anyone even if stabbed in the side.

Among the causes, here are several that a real, flesh and blood man named Jesus could have suffered from (emphasis mine):

Diabetes: If the blood sugar levels of a person with diabetes rise too much, this is known as hyperglycemia. If they become too low, this is hypoglycemia. If hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia continue for too long, a coma can result.

Hypoxia, or lack of oxygen: If the supply of oxygen to the brain is reduced or cut off, for example, during a heart attack, stroke, or [as a result of being crucified], a coma may result.
...
Traumatic brain injuries: Road traffic accidents, sports injuries, and violent attacks that involve a blow to the head can cause coma.

For all we know, Jesus could have not only had diabetes and never known it, any one or combination of these conditions could have been present and/or caused/exacerbated by his alleged torture and subsequent crucifixion.

Regardless, the idea that coma is somehow NOT as "reasonable"--let alone more reasonable--than magic is real is simply not supportable.

Iow, so it's painfully clear, of the two claims, the more reasonable explanation is, without doubt, coma.

 

[Learner]

Interesting info and noted. Blood and water was mentioned coming from Jesus's side wound. Now I remember watching a vid where medical experts were asked about the significance of such a thing. IIRC they said it was fatal and to do with the lungs etc..I think ... piercing at an angle upwards, which is a real trauma discription ...blood and water from those types of wounds. I need a little refreshing here.

 

[atrib]

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

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

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

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

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