Do incredible claims require incredible evidence?

[wienerdog]

Define the phrase "incredible claim," then define the phrase "incredible evidence."

Here's the trick: the term "incredible" has to have the same meaning in both phrases. Otherwise, it's an equivocation.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47634#post47634)
wienerdog:

Define the phrase "incredible claim," then define the phrase "incredible evidence."

Here's the trick: the term "incredible" has to have the same meaning in both phrases. Otherwise, it's an equivocation.

Is that how the call for a greater level of evidence in the case of miracles & such is usually phrased (I honestly can't remember)?

It seems to me that since the evidentiary maxim isn't an argument per se that it's not equivocation in any negative sense. OTOH, it's a slightly silly thing to say, since it's essentially an excuse to disbelieve things that seem incredible on the part of certain someones. It's possible to believe things on very skimpy evidence, and those claims could well be true, which gives the lie to the claim.
It's also possible to take the claim itself as an incredible claim, and ask for high-quality evidence that evidence of greater quality is necessary (or even desirable) in order that incredible claims be believed.
In practice, most of us do require better evidence to substantiate claims that are on the surface incredible--and that's probably a good idea, imo.

[sandlewood]

I think the phrase most commonly used is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47931#post47931)
sandlewood:

I think the phrase most commonly used is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I like that!
It's kind of like:
"Medical claims require medical evidence."
"Scientific claims require scientific evidence."
"Legal claims require legal evidence."
Etcetera.
:smile:

[sandlewood]

I don’t agree that those are the same things. You listed types of evidence, not degrees of evidence. “Extraordinary” refers to a degree of evidence.

If I made the claim that I dropped a ball and it fell to the ground, you might not believe me. But if I showed you a videotape I made of me dropping the ball and the ball falling to the ground, then that might be enough to convince you. The reason you might be convinced so easily is because a ball falling to the ground is consistent with all other facts you know and have experienced in your lifetime. All objects fall towards the earth due to gravity.

But if I made a claim that the ball fell upwards toward the sky, you would probably no believe me. If I showed you a videotape of me dropping a ball and it falling towards the sky, in this case you probably still would not believe me. That’s because this event would be inconsistent with all other facts you know and have experienced in your lifetime. Plus, you know that videotapes can be faked, and that that is more likely to have happened than a ball falling away from the earth. (Or, the ball could have been a balloon filled with helium, in which case there was nothing extraordinary about the event, but that more information needed to be uncovered.)


Today @ 05:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47694#post47694)
Captain Ochre:
In practice, most of us do require better evidence to substantiate claims that are on the surface incredible--and that's probably a good idea, imo.
Sounds like we agree then.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47968#post47968)
sandlewood:

I don’t agree that those are the same things.


Then you may have missed the subtle point. Extraordinary events manufacture the same type of evidence that ordinary events do. The evidentiary status of the event itself isn't at issue, the issue with the person who utters the now-trite canard is his own skepticism. He's saying: "It'll be a miracle if I believe what you say", basically.



You listed types of evidence, not degrees of evidence. “Extraordinary” refers to a degree of evidence.


Maybe you get the point and don't get it at the same time. :smile:



But if I made a claim that the ball fell upwards toward the sky, you would probably no believe me. If I showed you a videotape of me dropping a ball and it falling towards the sky, in this case you probably still would not believe me. That’s because this event would be inconsistent with all other facts you know and have experienced in your lifetime.


Not really. I've lost kites and helium balloons before. :wink:



Plus, you know that videotapes can be faked, and that that is more likely to have happened than a ball falling away from the earth. (Or, the ball could have been a balloon filled with helium, in which case there was nothing extraordinary about the event, but that more information needed to be uncovered.)


Note that the evidence was the same for both except for my personal experience?



Sounds like we agree then.

I'm sure that we could find some aspect of the issue that we disagree on . . .
:smile:

[AtheistArchon]

- Hmm. I think I see the point here.

- How about this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence. Does that sit better?

- It's not really true that all evidence is equal in weight or value. For example, there's personal testimony. Evidence yes, but not historically the most credible evidence. Then there's empirical evidence, which is what science uses. Lastly, there's experiencing the claim yourself via pure empiricism, which is the best evidence for you, but not the best evidence with which to convince others (because you usually just give them your own personal testimony).

[The Laughing Man]

It's interesting that you mentioned testimony. True, one person's testimony is often not entirely credible on its own. So what makes testimony credible? Other kinds of evidence, yes, but also the testimony of others. Take, for example, the recent cases against Catholic priests and the accusations of sexual abuse against them. Quite extraordinary claims against men whom people trust and confide in, yes? Did we have extraordinary evidence for those claims? Well, there was neither physical evidence nor videotaped evidence. All prosecuters had to go on was testimonial evidence. What made that evidence credible and believable? One person's testimony was usually backed up by the testimony of others. The testimonies became believable.

So why do some people so flippantly (and often hostily) dismiss the testimony of millions Christians? Some say, "Well, I've never experienced anything like they claim." And? Have people who say that ever experienced sexual abuse by a priest? Why does someone need personal experience of the same sort to believe another persons (or millions of other people's) testimony?

[AtheistArchon]

True, one person's testimony is often not entirely credible on its own. So what makes testimony credible? Other kinds of evidence, yes, but also the testimony of others. Take, for example, the recent cases against Catholic priests and the accusations of sexual abuse against them. Quite extraordinary claims against men whom people trust and confide in, yes? Did we have extraordinary evidence for those claims? Well, there was neither physical evidence nor videotaped evidence. All prosecuters had to go on was testimonial evidence. What made that evidence credible and believable? One person's testimony was usually backed up by the testimony of others. The testimonies became believable.

- Well, not every claim was one person's word against a priest. There's empirical evidence of extreme misconduct in the records kept by the local churches (and the vatican) in that certain priests were acknowledged pedophiles and were shifted from parish to parish instead of being removed from the ranks. But yes, I get your point. I'll note however that the US legal system certainly doesn't have evidence standards as strict as science does. It relies largely upon testimony... usually first-person testimony, I might add.


So why do some people so flippantly (and often hostily) dismiss the testimony of millions Christians?

- I could turn this around: why do so many Christians flippantly dismiss the testimony of Wiccans? :smile:

- I can answer for myself, of course: because most of the time, said testimony is nothing but an acknowledgement of a pre-prepared set of ideas (the bible) and cannot be tested. Additionally, many of the claims break the known laws of physics (which is what I call "extraordinary").

[The Laughing Man]

Known laws of physics or just the current understanding of physics?

[Sher]

Today @ 09:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48116#post48116)
AtheistArchon:

[...] Additionally, many of the claims break the known laws of physics [...] (emphasis mine) :wink:

[Sher]

:::snickers at Jinx and SherBear "sharing the same brain":::

"EXCELLENT" :rockon:

[AtheistArchon]

Known laws of physics or just the current understanding of physics?

- Hey, I'm open minded! As soon as someone can demonstrate the dead rising after three days, I'll begin to reconsider our current understanding of the particular physical laws in question. :smile:

- But not before.

[The Laughing Man]

Let me extrapolate. Take the speed of light (C), for instance. According to the current understanding of physics, nothing can exceed C. To do so would be considered "supernatural," correct? But what if we develop technology like what's portrayed in "Star Trek," "Star Wars," or "Stargate?"

My point is that we can't really limit ourselves to what we currently know or understand.

[wienerdog]

If an "incredible claim" is a claim that the laws of physics were violated or superseded, then "incredible evidence" would also have to violate or supersede the laws of physics. But then, of course, the evidence itself would be an incredible claim, since it involves the laws of physics being violated or superseded. And so on, ad infinitum.

[The Laughing Man]

As soon as someone can demonstrate the dead rising after three days

See. This is what I meant in my post about testimony.

[wienerdog]

btw, Jinx, I disagree with you conception of "known" laws of physics or whatever. The known laws of physics are just that: known and laws. We may find other laws that refine them, just as relativity refined Newtonian physics, but that's not the same thing as saying that they might be overthrown.

At any rate, there's no need to try to find another law that would refine the current laws so as to allow a man who was dead for three days resurrect. No one is claiming that it was a natural event. I would of course agree that it is ridiculously improbable that all the cells in a dead man's corpse would suddenly and simultaneously come back to life by natural processes. But the claim that "God raised Jesus from the dead" could only be improbable once God's existence or inability to act in the world is demonstrated.

[AtheistArchon]

Let me extrapolate. Take the speed of light (C), for instance. According to the current understanding of physics, nothing can exceed C. To do so would be considered "supernatural," correct? But what if we develop technology like what's portrayed in "Star Trek," "Star Wars," or "Stargate?"

- Indeed! But I don't believe in those technologies either. They would have to be demonstrated to me. Equally, it may someday be possible to resurrect someone after being brain dead for three days via medical science. But what effect would that have on the "miracle" of Jesus' resurrection, I wonder? That's a complex question perhaps.


My point is that we can't really limit ourselves to what we currently know or understand.

- So... would you care to buy some property from me? It's cheap! And I promise it will increase in value ten times in the year after you buy it...


If an "incredible claim" is a claim that the laws of physics were violated or superseded, then "incredible evidence" would also have to violate or supersede the laws of physics. But then, of course, the evidence itself would be an incredible claim, since it involves the laws of physics being violated or superseded. And so on, ad infinitum.

- True. That's why I said the "known" laws of physics. Or... did I leave that out the first time? Dang, I may have.


See. This is what I meant in my post about testimony.

- What about it? You would not take my word that I'd been to Mars yesterday. Why should I take your word (or the word of a religious text, or a priest, or a minister, etc) that something similarly extraordinary happened?

[AtheistArchon]

At any rate, there's no need to try to find another law that would refine the current laws so as to allow a man who was dead for three days resurrect. No one is claiming that it was a natural event. I would of course agree that it is ridiculously improbable that all the cells in a dead man's corpse would suddenly and simultaneously come back to life by natural processes. But the claim that "God raised Jesus from the dead" could only be improbable once God's existence or inability to act in the world is demonstrated.

- In that case, we have a problem. The core premise behind Christianity is, aside from being a miracle (and thus breaking the laws of physics), nonfalsifiable. Along with dragons and fairies and... well, you get the idea.

- I realize that being a Christian takes faith, but what makes Christian faith any more valid than, say, Wiccan faith? Or comet cult faith?

[johnransom]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47968#post47968)
sandlewood:

I don’t agree that those are the same things. You listed types of evidence, not degrees of evidence. “Extraordinary” refers to a degree of evidence.

...But if I made a claim that the ball fell upwards toward the sky, you would probably no believe me. If I showed you a videotape of me dropping a ball and it falling towards the sky, in this case you probably still would not believe me...

You are correct that the good captain was wrong, but you are also wrong. "Extraordinary" does not relate to degree, but to quality. It also does not relate to quantity, as Archon suggested. Also, contrary to what WD was trying to point out in his initial post, the concept of "extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence" is not a true equivocation. Now, what the assertion really means is "unusually unlikely claims require unusually unquestionable evidence". But the unlikely/unquestionable opposition doesn't really belong to the adjective "extraordinary", but to the nouns claims/evidence.

However, unfortunately for the atheist asserter of this statement, the implication is that the "unusual" part is also inherent to the noun, the argument being that the evidence must be both unusual (because the claim is unusual) AND unquestionable. Such evidence being very hard to come by, the atheist shelters behind this claim to bolster his intransigent skepticism. But this is of course not true; the best evidence is normally very ordinary. The simpler the evidence, the harder it is to refute. The upwards falling ball is a case in point. Video can indeed be faked, so the best evidence would be to let you have the ball and see what it does. So what one really needs is not extraordinary evidence, but merely very good evidence.

[AtheistArchon]

However, unfortunately for the atheist asserter of this statement, the implication is that the "unusual" part is also inherent to the noun, the argument being that the evidence must be both unusual (because the claim is unusual) AND unquestionable. Such evidence being very hard to come by, the atheist shelters behind this claim to bolster his intransigent skepticism. But this is of course not true; the best evidence is normally very ordinary. The simpler the evidence, the harder it is to refute. The upwards falling ball is a case in point. Video can indeed be faked, so the best evidence would be to let you have the ball and see what it does. So what one really needs is not extraordinary evidence, but merely very good evidence.

- Eh, so what does this mean? What would it take for me to convince you that, say, I am god?

- I can give you lots and lots of "very good" evidence:

1. I can send you a picture of me creating a baby.
2. I can send you a video of me dying and coming back to life.
3. I can let you speak to countless eyewitnesses that saw me heal a terminally ill man with cancer.

- Would any of these things convince you?

- Let me tell you what I've been told would convince a Christian that I'm god: "create a universe for me, then I'll believe you." I think I've been told this maybe a hundred times. And guess what? That would be some extraordinary evidence. The kind of thing you just don't see every day, just like the claim.

[sandlewood]

Yesterday @ 09:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48297#post48297)
johnransom:
Now, what the assertion really means is "unusually unlikely claims require unusually unquestionable evidence".

I think you summed it up nicely here. Thanks. I agree that “extraordinary” does not apply to the evidence itself. We don’t mean that the occurrence of the evidence for a miracle would be a miracle in itself. We just mean that the more unlikely the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be. I think the quote is just phrased the way it is to give it a nice ring. I also suspect everyone knows that but are just trying to be difficult.


the best evidence is normally very ordinary. The simpler the evidence, the harder it is to refute. The upwards falling ball is a case in point. Video can indeed be faked, so the best evidence would be to let you have the ball and see what it does. So what one really needs is not extraordinary evidence, but merely very good evidence.

Agreed. Evidence can be simple and easy to come by, but also very strong.

Captain Ochre, I didn’t reply to you post earlier because I wasn’t sure what you were saying. But I think johnransom has cleared it up.


Yesterday @ 04:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48046#post48046)
Jinx72:
So why do some people so flippantly (and often hostily) dismiss the testimony of millions Christians? Some say, "Well, I've never experienced anything like they claim." And? Have people who say that ever experienced sexual abuse by a priest? Why does someone need personal experience of the same sort to believe another persons (or millions of other people's) testimony?

You have to be careful not to confuse what constitutes evidence in a court of law with what constitutes evidence about the nature of reality.

A problem in the claims of theists is that they are all different. There is no consistency. God seems to “speak” to theists in all different ways. I was reading the Baptist Board a while back and one woman gave the example that God is that little voice in your head that tells you to bring the shopping cart back to the front of the supermarket. In my experience that is nothing more than a person’s conscience; the desire to be what you’ve defined as a good person.

I don’t think anyone doubts that people have emotional experiences. One of the problems comes in when you try to link that to the existence of a god. When you say “I felt something wonderful, therefore a god exists (a specific god, no less)” then you’re drawing an unjustified conclusion.

(Btw, what are spam and anti-spam points?)

[wienerdog]

Today @ 03:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48178#post48178)
AtheistArchon:



- In that case, we have a problem. The core premise behind Christianity is, aside from being a miracle (and thus breaking the laws of physics), nonfalsifiable. Along with dragons and fairies and... well, you get the idea.

I would respond first by saying that all of history is unfalsifiable in a strict sense. But science and history both depend on "inference to the best explanation." Second, I wouldn't describe a miracle as something which "breaks" the laws of physics, but something which supersedes them. If I catch a ball, I'm not breaking the law of gravity because I prevent it from falling. Third, it's a category mistake to equate belief in God with belief in dragons or fairies. Belief in a supernatural ground of being has been nearly universal throughout human history and cultures.


- I realize that being a Christian takes faith, but what makes Christian faith any more valid than, say, Wiccan faith? Or comet cult faith?

The historical evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I would also point out that "faith" in the modern sense means essentially blind faith. Biblical faith is trust; in the sense that I have faith in someone I know very well to respect me or whatever.

I appreciate John Ransom's comments. I would also say that I don't think the resurrection can be considered improbable. It's very unusual and out of the ordinary, of course, but I don't think that immediately translates into improbability, unless one can demonstrate that God's existence or action in the world is improbable.

At any rate, we've kind of gone astray from the original question. I would like to know what qualifies as an "extraordinary (or incredible or whatever) claim." I realize that this is just a catch phrase, but it's one I've heard a lot. It seems to me that you need sufficient evidence to prove any claim, and this phrase is saying that for certain claims, sufficient evidence would be greater or whatever. But, taking Christ's resurrection for an example, why wouldn't regular historical evidence be sufficient?

I think most of the people who use this phrase are simply saying that they refuse to believe certain things, regardless. If evidence was given, they could just say "it's not good enough." If video footage of the event was shown to them, they could just say "the film was altered." If they actually witnessed it for themselves, they could just say "it was a hallucination."

[flipper]

Jinx72:


See. This is what I meant in my post about testimony.

So would you like to confirm that, in your view, Benny Hinn's partner in evangelism, Reinhard Bonnke, genuinely did resurrect someone from the dead?

http://www.born-again-christian.info/african.resurrection.htm

If not, why not?

[Valmoon]

I appreciate John Ransom's comments. I would also say that I don't think the resurrection can be considered improbable. It's very unusual and out of the ordinary, of course, but I don't think that immediately translates into improbability, unless one can demonstrate that God's existence or action in the world is improbable.

But couldnt this be used to justify any of what we might normally conclude are outlandish claims? In an earlier thread someone questioned if once you accept the idea of supernatural events if you can then label as improbable other supernatural events that others accept. Since there is nothing to go by to determine the probability of supernatural things happening or having happened.

If Christians or any Faith cannot demonstrate that God's existence or action in the world is improbable then they as well should not consider any other religions claims of supernatural events as improbable. But I see this happening quite frequently.
Perhaps Christian fundamentalists skepticism at the Catholics belief in transubstiation has no merit beyond emotional pleading.

[johnransom]

Yesterday @ 11:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48327#post48327)
AtheistArchon:



- Eh, so what does this mean? What would it take for me to convince you that, say, I am god?
Well, you'd have to quit being so dumb, for a start. Or is this perhaps why you don't answer questions?


- I can give you lots and lots of "very good" evidence:

1. I can send you a picture of me creating a baby.
2. I can send you a video of me dying and coming back to life.
3. I can let you speak to countless eyewitnesses that saw me heal a terminally ill man with cancer.
Poor thinking, as usual. #1 and #2 are precisely the kinds of evidence we have already excluded. And as for #3, I am not sure how one would observe cancer being healed, short of a real-time MRI machine (which I don't think exists yet).


- Would any of these things convince you?
Evidently not.


- Let me tell you what I've been told would convince a Christian that I'm god: "create a universe for me, then I'll believe you." I think I've been told this maybe a hundred times. And guess what? That would be some extraordinary evidence. The kind of thing you just don't see every day, just like the claim.
Er...did it occur to you that maybe they were being sarcastic? Besides, there can by definition be only one universe (all that is), so creating another would be impossible even for God.

[AtheistArchon]

Well, you'd have to quit being so dumb, for a start. Or is this perhaps why you don't answer questions?

- Umm, is that supposed to be an answer to my question? I asked you what it would take to convince you that I'm god.


Poor thinking, as usual.

- As usual? :brow: How long have you known me?


#1 and #2 are precisely the kinds of evidence we have already excluded. And as for #3, I am not sure how one would observe cancer being healed, short of a real-time MRI machine (which I don't think exists yet).

- So are you saying that you wouldn't believe these evidences?


Evidently not.

- "Evidently"? Yes or no? Would they convince you?


Er...did it occur to you that maybe they were being sarcastic? Besides, there can by definition be only one universe (all that is), so creating another would be impossible even for God.

- Wha...?

- Gimme some of whatever you're smokin, my friend, because it sounds like some good stuff.

- Firstly, you never really answered any of my questions, did you? "Very good evidence" is not what you'd accept if I claimed I were god (I'm guessing here).

- Secondly... what definition of the universe implies that there can only be one? Is it biblical, and if so, what's the verse? Is it scientific, and if so, where's the reference?

- Thirdly, I was unaware that god, who is omnipotent, cannot do what he's already reported to have already done. :smile: Where do we learn the rules god plays by, anyway?

[AtheistArchon]

At any rate, we've kind of gone astray from the original question. I would like to know what qualifies as an "extraordinary (or incredible or whatever) claim." I realize that this is just a catch phrase, but it's one I've heard a lot. It seems to me that you need sufficient evidence to prove any claim, and this phrase is saying that for certain claims, sufficient evidence would be greater or whatever. But, taking Christ's resurrection for an example, why wouldn't regular historical evidence be sufficient?

- Let me answer this the way I've already put it in the past.

- I went on a vacation to Mars last week. I have lots of friends who saw me go... I have some plastic keepsakes I picked up in the Martian giftshop... and I have photos of the event. Do you believe me?

- No, of course you don't, and none of my evidences (which actually do go far beyond average historical evidences, and especially farther than 2nd and 3rd century religious texts) should convince you. Ask yourself why not. Seriously. Your skepticism in my claim that I went to mars is equal to my skepticism that a man rose from the dead after being so for three days in the ancient middle east.


I think most of the people who use this phrase are simply saying that they refuse to believe certain things, regardless. If evidence was given, they could just say "it's not good enough."

- What... my friends' personal testimony and pictoral documentation of my trip "isn't good enough" to verify my trip to Mars?

- How about if I took you for a ride in my spaceship? Now that would be good enough, I bet. However, if I can't provide you with this kind of evidence, you are 100% justified in not believing my claim. Do you disagree?

[Valmoon]

Come on Atheist Archon, you know as well as I do that it's more likely for a 3 day old dead man to rise then for you to have travelled to Mars.

[AtheistArchon]

- A man who is 3 days old and also dead, or a man who has been dead for 3 days? :brow:

[wienerdog]

AA,

I think the difference between the examples you gave and the resurrection is that your examples are ad hoc, whereas the resurrection is not. Anyone can just arbitrarily pick some weird sounding event and say "You don't believe this do you? Why do you believe the resurrection?" But the resurrection occurred within a particular historical context: the Messianic expectation of the Jewish people, the uniqueness of Jesus’ life, and the relevance that it has for one of the most fundamental aspects of human experience (death) makes it about as far removed from ad hoc-ness and caprice as anything could be. This was brought home to me when I listened to a taped debate between William Lane Craig and Robert Greg Cavin on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. Cavin acknowledges that the consensus of scholars agree that Jesus' burial, the empty tomb, and Jesus' post-mortem appearances, are demonstrable facts of history (I know that's really loaded; maybe we should start another thread for it). But Cavin doesn't think that Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation for these facts; instead, he believes that Jesus had an evil twin! This suggestion is much more ad hoc than the miraculous explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead.

[johnransom]

Yesterday @ 10:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49010#post49010)
AtheistArchon:
- Umm, is that supposed to be an answer to my question? I asked you what it would take to convince you that I'm god.
Yes.

- As usual? :brow: How long have you known me?
Long enough to know that you don't answer direct questions even when repeated innumerable times, and don't understand statements in plain English.

- So are you saying that you wouldn't believe these evidences?

- "Evidently"? Yes or no? Would they convince you?
Such as that one.

- Wha...?

- Gimme some of whatever you're smokin, my friend, because it sounds like some good stuff.
Poor sarcasm hardly works as an answer to a very simple point. It merely demonstrates your incomprehension.

- Firstly, you never really answered any of my questions, did you? "Very good evidence" is not what you'd accept if I claimed I were god (I'm guessing here).
Yes I did, and no, you didn't provide any.

- Secondly... what definition of the universe implies that there can only be one? Is it biblical, and if so, what's the verse? Is it scientific, and if so, where's the reference?
More imcomprehension. The definition was given immediately after the word itself, and its source should have recognizable to any self-respecting atheist (if such there be).

- Thirdly, I was unaware that god, who is omnipotent, cannot do what he's already reported to have already done. :smile: Where do we learn the rules god plays by, anyway?
It's called logic, a concept with which you have over time here shown yourself to be totally unfamiliar. And I have previously pointed out to you that God cannot do that which is contradictory to himself or logic, but I should have remembered you didn't get it before, so why should you now?

[johnransom]

Today @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49700#post49700)
wienerdog:

AA,

I think the difference between the examples you gave and the resurrection is that your examples are ad hoc...
Not only ad hoc, but just plain silly. You are of course right on the money, WD. Atheists frequently show themselves to have no intuitive understanding of the concept of context, especially of a cultural or historical nature, which JPH lampoons mercilessly.

They also fail to understand the difference between an ad hoc unique event and a necessarily unique event - such as the resurrection, which would have no probative force if it were not unique (so far at least).

[sandlewood]

Today @ 01:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49700#post49700)
wienerdog:
But the resurrection occurred within a particular historical context: the Messianic expectation of the Jewish people, the uniqueness of Jesus’ life, and the relevance that it has for one of the most fundamental aspects of human experience (death) makes it about as far removed from ad hoc-ness and caprice as anything could be.

What made Jesus’ life unique? The fact that he rose from the dead? That would be circular reasoning. That he had a philosophy of life? As I understand it, the things he said were not particularly original. And there have been many other philosophers and we don’t believe they resurrected just because they said philosophical things. And if his life has any relevance to death, then that is merely part of the claim. If there is no god then his life is not relevant to death. So that is also circular reasoning.


But Cavin doesn't think that Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation for these facts; instead, he believes that Jesus had an evil twin! This suggestion is much more ad hoc than the miraculous explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Whether it is ad hoc or not, it is more likely. But I certainly wouldn’t propose that Jesus had an evil twin. The most likely thing that could have happened is that stories got changed and exaggerated out of proportion. People were superstitious. Just like people used to believe in witches only a few hundred years ago. What we now know to be biological illnesses were believed to be demonic possessions.

[Socrates]

Sandlewood:The most likely thing that could have happened is that stories got changed and exaggerated out of proportion.Even more likely is that Sandlewood is a graphocentrist who has no idea about the reliability of oral tradition in such cultures. E.g. the presence of hostile witnesses would have provided checks, and the great teachers used memorization techniques akin to what modern people spend huge amounts of money to learn at memory improvement seminars. People were superstitious. Just like people used to believe in witches only a few hundred years ago.Here comes the chronological snobbery. This is from an age where most newspapers carry horoscopes!! And if you look at ancient historical writing, including the Bible, many people were skeptical of miracles claims, including Mary and Joseph about the Annunciation!
What we now know to be biological illnesses were believed to be demonic possessions.Not at all. The Bible distinguished between organic illnesses and demon possession. E.g. there wasn't the slightest hint that the lepers, lame and blind that Jesus healed were demon possessed.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50095#post50095)
Socrates:
Even more likely is that Sandlewood is a graphocentrist who has no idea about the reliability of oral tradition in such cultures.

So every story ever told by the oral tradition is completely true and hasn't been embelished in any way? Can you prove that?


E.g. the presence of hostile witnesses would have provided checks

Maybe they did, but accepting evidence has never been a particularly strong trait amongst religious fanatics.


and the great teachers used memorization techniques akin to what modern people spend huge amounts of money to learn at memory improvement seminars.

How do you know?


And if you look at ancient historical writing, including the Bible, many people were skeptical of miracles claims, including Mary and Joseph about the Annunciation!

And many would believe them. Ancient people knew virtually nothing about the natural world and were heavily superstitious. Whether Socrates likes it or not.

Paul

[AtheistArchon]

I think the difference between the examples you gave and the resurrection is that your examples are ad hoc, whereas the resurrection is not. Anyone can just arbitrarily pick some weird sounding event and say "You don't believe this do you? Why do you believe the resurrection?" But the resurrection occurred within a particular historical context: the Messianic expectation of the Jewish people, the uniqueness of Jesus’ life, and the relevance that it has for one of the most fundamental aspects of human experience (death) makes it about as far removed from ad hoc-ness and caprice as anything could be.

- Ehhh, well, I never really thought about the surrounding conditions. Let me think here.


the Messianic expectation of the Jewish people

- According to the bible, sure... and they got what they expected.


the uniqueness of Jesus’ life

- Unique in that he was the son of god, could heal the sick, and came back to life? But these things are just part of the story.


and the relevance that it has for one of the most fundamental aspects of human experience (death)

- Again, only if you're a Christian and believe such a thing.

- From my point of view, the resurrection *is* ad-hoc. Certainly as ad-hoc as any other religious miracle (from any other religion, which by the way you don't believe in either).


But Cavin doesn't think that Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation for these facts; instead, he believes that Jesus had an evil twin! This suggestion is much more ad hoc than the miraculous explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead.

- It might be more ad-hoc, but is it less believeable? Of course Cavin is probably reaching... there's no way he could know whether or not Jesus had a twin. However, I'd be more prone to believe the twin explanation than in the resurrection. I think he is just making a point. :smile:


Long enough to know that you don't answer direct questions even when repeated innumerable times, and don't understand statements in plain English.

- Alright, so ask me your question, and me'sa try undurstand. *scratches butt*


"Yes or no? Would they convince you? ”


Such as that one.

- Wha? What was that about me understanding plain English? :hrm:


More imcomprehension. The definition was given immediately after the word itself

- Ohhh, you mean that YOU define "universe" as meaning that there can only be one. Well yes, I understand that you think this, but just because you think it doesn't mean that this is what the word means. What I was asking for is an outside source... biblical or scientific, remember... that implies that the universe must be the only universe in existence.

- If you have an outside source, then good. If not, then let's call it your opinion instead of "the definition". Mmmkay?


It's called logic, a concept with which you have over time here shown yourself to be totally unfamiliar. And I have previously pointed out to you that God cannot do that which is contradictory to himself or logic, but I should have remembered you didn't get it before, so why should you now?

- Are you certain that I am who you think I am? You and I might have posted to each other maybe four times. I think you're getting your atheists mixed up. :smile:

- In any case, show me why creating multiple universes is logically impossible for an omnipotent deity. Don't just say it... show it. If it's logic, then you should have no problem!


Not only ad hoc, but just plain silly. You are of course right on the money, WD. Atheists frequently show themselves to have no intuitive understanding of the concept of context, especially of a cultural or historical nature, which JPH lampoons mercilessly.

- As silly as my examples sound... that's as silly as the resurrection sounds to an atheist. *shrug* "Cultural" and "historical" context matters not a bit! We're talking about breaking the laws of physics here, and never once have I argued from a cultural or historical viewpoint.

- In fact, I'm not exactly sure how culture or historical context matters. Certainly the ancient Greeks had a lot of culture and history surrounding Zeus, Apollo, and so forth. Does this make their gods and miracles more viable?


They also fail to understand the difference between an ad hoc unique event and a necessarily unique event - such as the resurrection, which would have no probative force if it were not unique (so far at least).

- Hmm. So now the fact that it can't happen again (and therefore can't be demonstrated) makes it more believeable? :huh:


Here comes the chronological snobbery. This is from an age where most newspapers carry horoscopes!!

- Potato, potAto. It's not snobbery when you disbelieve Christianity AND astrology. :brow: That's not snobbery, that's consistency.


And if you look at ancient historical writing, including the Bible

- :duh:

[wienerdog]

About the uniqueness of Jesus' life: In a debate, John Dominic Crossan, who is a very liberal scholar, said that his interest in Jesus is not because of what he said, but because of his life. I found this interesting because Crossan denies that we can know very much about Jesus' life at all. So there seems to be something intrinsic in Jesus' life, even when the majority of it is disbelieved, to warrant deep respect, enough for Crossan to devote his life to studying him. He doesn't go into detail about what it is about Jesus' life that fascinates him, but I found this interesting.

For me, part of the uniqueness is that Jesus at least implicitly claimed to be God. "Today there is virtually a consensus…that Jesus came on the scene with an unheard-of authority, namely, the authority of God, with the claim of the authority to stand in God’s place and speak to us and to bring us to salvation." (Horst Georg Pöhlmann, Abriss der Dogmatik, 3d rev. ed. [Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1966], 230)

To paraphrase Wolfhart Pannenberg, the significance of the resurrection is not that some guy rose from the dead, but that this particular guy did. He was crucified because he assumed God's position and authority (blasphemy to the Jews, treason to the Romans). The resurrection would amount to his divine vindication.

[johnransom]

Yesterday @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50163#post50163)
AtheistArchon:
- Alright, so ask me your question, and me'sa try undurstand. *scratches butt*
Ah. Racist slurs too. It gets so much better. The question I asked over and over with no response (other than charging me with originating it) was where you got the ridiculous idea that the tree of knowledge of good and evil granted free will. Remember that incredibly easy question? Or is your memory too short?

- Wha? What was that about me understanding plain English?
And you still don’t. What is it about “Evidently not” that you cannot understand?

- Ohhh, you mean that YOU define "universe" as meaning that there can only be one. Well yes, I understand that you think this, but just because you think it doesn't mean that this is what the word means. What I was asking for is an outside source... biblical or scientific, remember... that implies that the universe must be the only universe in existence.
Who said I define it that way? Are you that poorly informed an atheist that you don’t even recognize a reference to Carl Sagan? (rhetorical question)

- If you have an outside source, then good. If not, then let's call it your opinion instead of "the definition". Mmmkay?
Mmmno.

- Are you certain that I am who you think I am? You and I might have posted to each other maybe four times. I think you're getting your atheists mixed up.
Possibly, although I doubt it. But then you do all seem to speak with the same mind. If only you’d speak only when you’re the one actually using it.

- In any case, show me why creating multiple universes is logically impossible for an omnipotent deity. Don't just say it... show it. If it's logic, then you should have no problem!
In other words, please explain the obvious. But if you insist – if the universe comprises all that exists, then it is impossible to create a new one, because you clearly can’t have more than one set of all things.

Beyond that, there are many things that an omnipotent entity cannot logically do. Die, for one. Make a square circle, for another. Do I have to explain to you why an omnipotent entity can’t do these things? (rhetorical question)

- As silly as my examples sound... that's as silly as the resurrection sounds to an atheist. *shrug* "Cultural" and "historical" context matters not a bit! We're talking about breaking the laws of physics here, and never once have I argued from a cultural or historical viewpoint.
IOW, the resurrection and any other supernatural event didn’t occur because you deny the supernatural exists, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And obviously (again) you didn’t argue from a cultural or historical viewpoint. If you had, my observation wouldn’t have made much sense, would it?

- In fact, I'm not exactly sure how culture or historical context matters. Certainly the ancient Greeks had a lot of culture and history surrounding Zeus, Apollo, and so forth. Does this make their gods and miracles more viable?
Let me guess – you’re a student of ancient Greek history? An unsupported and likely uninformed assertion, methinks. In any event, you completely missed WD’s point, of course.

[AtheistArchon]

Ah. Racist slurs too. It gets so much better.

- What... you don't recognize Jar Jar Binks?? I'm hurt.

- Which race did you think I was trying to portray, by the way?


The question I asked over and over with no response (other than charging me with originating it) was where you got the ridiculous idea that the tree of knowledge of good and evil granted free will. Remember that incredibly easy question? Or is your memory too short?

- What thread are you talking about, man? Not this one, because you never asked me such a thing here. Go ahead and read back. Are you referring to another thread? If so, which one?

- I'd be happy to go over the whole free will vs. tree of knowledge thing with you...... in the appropriate thread. Just bump it to the top.


And you still don’t. What is it about “Evidently not” that you cannot understand?

- That's not what I was calling you on, JR. I said "Yes or no? Would they convince you?" and you said "Such as that one." Heck, I even quoted you. Are you sure you're reading the right thread? :huh:


Who said I define it that way? Are you that poorly informed an atheist that you don’t even recognize a reference to Carl Sagan? (rhetorical question)

- Well if you don't believe that this universe is "all that is", then why did you state that making another one would be impossible for god?


Mmmno.

- Okay, so give me your definition of the universe.


Possibly, although I doubt it. But then you do all seem to speak with the same mind. If only you’d speak only when you’re the one actually using it.

- Some atheist must have tied you up and tortured you when you were a boy. That has to be why you respond with nothing but ad hominem.


In other words, please explain the obvious. But if you insist – if the universe comprises all that exists, then it is impossible to create a new one, because you clearly can’t have more than one set of all things.

- So... that IS your definition of the universe. Stop flip flopping!


Beyond that, there are many things that an omnipotent entity cannot logically do. Die, for one. Make a square circle, for another. Do I have to explain to you why an omnipotent entity can’t do these things? (rhetorical question)

- Sure, logical contradictions are supposed to be impossible. Trust me, I'm aware of this. It's one of the prime tools in atheistic arguments against the existence of gods.


IOW, the resurrection and any other supernatural event didn’t occur because you deny the supernatural exists, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

- I deny the supernatural exists because there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence.


Let me guess – you’re a student of ancient Greek history? An unsupported and likely uninformed assertion, methinks.

- Are you denying that Greek history records events caused by Greek gods and goddesses?


In any event, you completely missed WD’s point, of course.

- His point was that historical documentation can be used as evidence for the existence of a deity. My point was that there is historical evidence for any number of deities that you don't happen to believe in, and don't consider proper evidence for. A case of a double standard, I believe.

- Why... what do you think his point was?

[sandlewood]

04-01-2003 @ 12:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
Even more likely is that Sandlewood is a graphocentrist who has no idea about the reliability of oral tradition in such cultures. E.g. the presence of hostile witnesses would have provided checks, and the great teachers used memorization techniques akin to what modern people spend huge amounts of money to learn at memory improvement seminars.

Suddenly I’m labeled a graphocentrist? Actually, I wasn’t remarking on the unreliability of information passed by word-of-mouth, although that would be one possibility, since I think such a method is far from infallible.

I was referring to other possibilities. The original person who started the story may easily have been superstitious. He may have incorrectly interpreted what he saw (or believed he saw) to be a miracle. Or, he may have reported exactly what he saw, but the person listening interpreted it to be a miracle. Or, one or more of the people along the storytelling chain intentionally decided that the story needed a little spicing up. They might have thought it would be nice to have a powerful savior that would provide justice in a world that appears unjust. Any of these are more likely than that a man who was dead three days spontaneously reanimated.

Consider this excerpt from Mark, the earliest Gospel:


Mark 1:32-34
That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

But in later Gospels:

Matthew 8:16
When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.


Luke 4:40
When the sun was setting, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them.

At first, some of the sick came to Jesus and some were healed. By the end, all who were sick came to Jesus and all were healed. A myth in the making.

If you found a two-thousand-year-old book of people claiming that evolution was true, I doubt you would believe the claim. But in fact, we have a large amount of evidence available today that can be directly examined today. But you don’t seem to apply nearly the same skepticism to the two-thousand-year-old word-of-mouth stories about miracles that you do to evolution.


Here comes the chronological snobbery. This is from an age where most newspapers carry horoscopes!! And if you look at ancient historical writing, including the Bible, many people were skeptical of miracles claims, including Mary and Joseph about the Annunciation!

What is your position then? Do you really believe that we are more superstitious today than people were four hundred years ago or two thousand years ago? The fact that we have entertaining little horoscopes in newspapers is the argument? Would it be “chronological snobbery” to claim that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa? I’ve never heard anyone called a chronological snob.


Not at all. The Bible distinguished between organic illnesses and demon possession. E.g. there wasn't the slightest hint that the lepers, lame and blind that Jesus healed were demon possessed.

So you believe demons exist? Do you believe that people are walking around demon-possessed today? Do you have a method for distinguishing between demon possession and a biological illness? Do you believe that there are people who are brought into a hospital where the doctor cannot diagnose the illness, and these people are demon-possessed and need to go to a priest for help?

Do you believe that some women are witches? Should we kill them as God said? If you answer “yes” to these, then you may convince me more than a horoscope that we are indeed more superstitious today than two millennia ago.

[sandlewood]

After reading some of the posts in the thread criteria for “Extraordinary” (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2612), it occurred to me that I may have misunderstood johnransom earlier, or what I posted regarding simple evidence may have been misunderstood.

If I were to claim to you that I live in a house with a connected garage, you may be skeptical. I could be making up a lie. Let’s say I come back the next day and email you a picture of my house with the house number on it and the name on the mailbox, and then I direct you to look up my name in the telephone book and you can see that the address matches the picture. At this point, you may be inclined to believe me. The reason you would believe is because it is not so unlikely that I actually did live in a house with a connected garage. Many people like me do. It is easy to find people that do.

But let’s say that I claim an alien spaceship landed in my front yard yesterday and then it took off again. You may be skeptical at that. So I come back the next day and email you a picture of the spaceship on my front lawn. Would you believe that a spaceship landed? Why not? I have a picture of it. It is simple evidence. It is the exact same type of evidence that convinced you that I live in a house with a connected garage.

It is more likely that you would think that I edited the picture in my computer somehow to draw in a spaceship. Or perhaps it wasn’t a real spaceship but a model. Or perhaps it was a real spaceship, but piloted by NASA instead of aliens. Why not believe my claim? Because the landing of an alien spaceship is not a common event. It is an extraordinary event. You need stronger evidence. You may want to have the picture examined by experts to see if it was faked. You may want to search my house for evidence of a model spaceship. You may want to examine the front lawn for signs of alien material.

So I would further refine the statement to be "unusually unlikely claims require unusually strong evidence". Extraordinary does not mean “non-simple in nature”. It means strong.

[wienerdog]

My point was that the resurrection cannot be considered improbable or implausible until God's existence or action in the world can be demonstrated to be improbable or implausible. And the resurrection can't be considered ad hoc or contrived because of the historical context in which it supposedly occurred, and its existential import. The other examples raised, like going to Mars or aliens landing are at least ad hoc, if not improbable as well. Thus, they are not parallel to the resurrection.

[sandlewood]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
wienerdog: My point was that the resurrection cannot be considered improbable or implausible until God's existence or action in the world can be demonstrated to be improbable or implausible.

Would you agree then that the resurrection cannot be used as evidence for the existence of God, that we must first establish the existence of God without resorting to the resurrection as evidence? If these two claims are supporting each other simultaneously, then that is circular.

Incidentally, you’re the second person I’ve encountered in this forum who has quoted a known historical figure out of context to convey the opposite meaning the author intended. David Hume argued against a designer of nature. The passage you quote is from a section regarding polytheism in which he is saying that if one were to think nature is designed, then one should rather believe that is was a single designer than multiple designers. But Hume did not believe nature was designed at all.

Also, Jinx72 quotes Thomas Jefferson out of context in his signature. Jefferson was unquestionably a non-Christian. I pointed that out, but I assume he wants to keep it there for whatever reason.

(funny how history gets corrupted)

[johnransom]

Today @ 07:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
sandlewood:
Also, Jinx72 quotes Thomas Jefferson out of context in his signature. Jefferson was unquestionably a non-Christian. I pointed that out, but I assume he wants to keep it there for whatever reason.

(funny how history gets corrupted)
Yes, isn't it. Jefferson's belief system is in fact a matter of serious debate, so your claim is false. As for the quote in Jinx's sig, it arose from comments about certain clergy in the eastern states who were adamantly opposing scientific advances; Jefferson evidently thought this a gross misrepresentation of true Christianity. Quite a propos for this particular thread.

[johnransom]

Today @ 05:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
sandlewood:

After reading some of the posts in the thread criteria for “Extraordinary” (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2612), it occurred to me that I may have misunderstood johnransom earlier, or what I posted regarding simple evidence may have been misunderstood...So I would further refine the statement to be "unusually unlikely claims require unusually strong evidence". Extraordinary does not mean “non-simple in nature”. It means strong.
Not quite. Extraordinary should mean that in this context. However it is frequently intentionally misused to mean "non-simple" and to create an undefined and therefore moving target that is impossible to hit.

[AtheistArchon]

Not quite. Extraordinary should mean that in this context. However it is frequently intentionally misused to mean "non-simple" and to create an undefined and therefore moving target that is impossible to hit.

- Actually, that might make sense. "Impossible claims require impossible evidence"... I'm okay with that. :smile:

[johnransom]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
AtheistArchon:

- What... you don't recognize Jar Jar Binks?? I'm hurt.

- Which race did you think I was trying to portray, by the way?
The same one that felt slurred by Jar Jar, of course.


- What thread are you talking about, man? Not this one, because you never asked me such a thing here. Go ahead and read back. Are you referring to another thread? If so, which one?

- I'd be happy to go over the whole free will vs. tree of knowledge thing with you...... in the appropriate thread. Just bump it to the top.
I have no intention of going back and having you avoid the same questions all over again.


- That's not what I was calling you on, JR. I said "Yes or no? Would they convince you?" and you said "Such as that one." Heck, I even quoted you. Are you sure you're reading the right thread?
And my point was that you can't understand a plainly stated answer when you get it.


- Well if you don't believe that this universe is "all that is", then why did you state that making another one would be impossible for god?

- Okay, so give me your definition of the universe.
I said I didn't define it; I didn't say I don't accept the definition. But my position is somewhat irrelevant; since the definition was framed by an atheist and widely accepted by atheists it seemed approrporate to use it. Evidently you have as little understanding of atheist context as you do of everything else. But then the American Atheists are not exactly known as the intellectual acme of atheism.


- Some atheist must have tied you up and tortured you when you were a boy. That has to be why you respond with nothing but ad hominem.
An atheist couldn't tie me in knots at any age. And ridiculing the ridiculous is not, as I have mentioned elsewhere, an ad hominem. It merely provides light relief from more serious discussion.


- Sure, logical contradictions are supposed to be impossible. Trust me, I'm aware of this. It's one of the prime tools in atheistic arguments against the existence of gods.
And the reason none of them work.


- I deny the supernatural exists because there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence.
The only interesting thing about this pointless claim is its appalling lack of predicate/pronoun agreement.


- Are you denying that Greek history records events caused by Greek gods and goddesses?
Nope. I'm questioning your credibility on the topic.


- His point was that historical documentation can be used as evidence for the existence of a deity. My point was that there is historical evidence for any number of deities that you don't happen to believe in, and don't consider proper evidence for. A case of a double standard, I believe.

- Why... what do you think his point was?
That was not his point, of course. A point I see no reason to rehash yet again. And rejecting certain evidences while accepting others is not a double standard merely because you think them equally false.

[AtheistArchon]

The same one that felt slurred by Jar Jar, of course.


- In that case, I'll just chalk it up to oversensitivity.


I have no intention of going back and having you avoid the same questions all over again.

- Isn't that ironic. :lol:

- So then you don't really want me to answer the question at all. So we can drop the whole Eden thing now since you're unwilling to discuss it, right?


And my point was that you can't understand a plainly stated answer when you get it.

- That doesn't make your comments coherent, but okay.


I said I didn't define it; I didn't say I don't accept the definition. But my position is somewhat irrelevant; since the definition was framed by an atheist and widely accepted by atheists it seemed approrporate to use it. Evidently you have as little understanding of atheist context as you do of everything else. But then the American Atheists are not exactly known as the intellectual acme of atheism.

- *sigh*


An atheist couldn't tie me in knots at any age. And ridiculing the ridiculous is not, as I have mentioned elsewhere, an ad hominem. It merely provides light relief from more serious discussion.

- Then my friend, "light relief" is what you're most proficient at.


And the reason none of them work.

- I trust you'd be willing to debate me on one, then, and show me?


The only interesting thing about this pointless claim is its appalling lack of predicate/pronoun agreement.

- Nice dodge.


Nope. I'm questioning your credibility on the topic.

- Quite needlessly, too. I have never claimed to be an expert on ancient Greek mythology, yet you end up agreeing with my statement now. If you agreed with it, then why challenge it?

- You're not an expert on nanotechnology!! Not too insulting, is it?


That was not his point, of course.

- And my question was: What do you think his point was? You go a long ways towards accusing me of not answering questions put to me (in other threads, no less), and then you avoid them yourself. :huh:


And rejecting certain evidences while accepting others is not a double standard merely because you think them equally false.

- Not certain examples of evidence, no, but certain qualities of evidence, yes. Historical evidence is fine when we're talking about the bible, but not when we're talking about some other religion? Double standard.

[johnransom]

Today @ 12:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
AtheistArchon:
- I trust you'd be willing to debate me on one, then, and show me?
Fair enough. Pick one, or give me a list of several to choose from, and post a challenge in the Coach's Quarters. It will have to wait though; I am in the throes of one of those more serious discussions I referred to.


- Quite needlessly, too. I have never claimed to be an expert on ancient Greek mythology, yet you end up agreeing with my statement now. If you agreed with it, then why challenge it?

- You're not an expert on nanotechnology!! Not too insulting, is it?
And you know this how? Your statement is of course completely out of court. I haven't brought up nanotechnology, you did bring up Greek history.


- And my question was: What do you think his point was? You go a long ways towards accusing me of not answering questions put to me (in other threads, no less), and then you avoid them yourself. :huh:
:huh: is right. The point is that the question has been answered. That you don't get it doesn't make it not so.


- Not certain examples of evidence, no, but certain qualities of evidence, yes. Historical evidence is fine when we're talking about the bible, but not when we're talking about some other religion? Double standard.
:duh: "Historical" is not a quality, it's a type.

[AtheistArchon]

Fair enough. Pick one, or give me a list of several to choose from, and post a challenge in the Coach's Quarters. It will have to wait though; I am in the throes of one of those more serious discussions I referred to.

- Excellent! Let me know whenever you're done, and we can begin.


And you know this how? Your statement is of course completely out of court. I haven't brought up nanotechnology, you did bring up Greek history.

- And you agreed with my statement about it. So I ask you again, why did you challenge it if you agreed with it?


The point is that the question has been answered. That you don't get it doesn't make it not so.

- Answered by "that wasn't his point". Mmmkay. So let's recap:

AA: What do you think WD's point was?
JR: Obviously it wasn't what you thought it was.
AA: What do you think WD's point was?
JR: I've already answered that question.

- Feel free to correct me.


"Historical" is not a quality, it's a type.

- Fine, it's a type.

- It's still a double standard to reject one type of evidence (historical) in one sitting, and then accept the same type of evidence (historical) in another when it happens to coincide with what you'd like to believe.

[johnransom]

Today @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
AtheistArchon:

- Excellent! Let me know whenever you're done, and we can begin.
OK. As I said, it will be a while. I have up to nine rounds left to go on the current exchange.


- And you agreed with my statement about it. So I ask you again, why did you challenge it if you agreed with it?
I neither agreed with it nor disagreed with it. As said, I merely challenged your credibility on the topic.


- Answered by "that wasn't his point". Mmmkay. So let's recap:

AA: What do you think WD's point was?
JR: Obviously it wasn't what you thought it was.
AA: What do you think WD's point was?
JR: I've already answered that question.

- Feel free to correct me.
How about you explain in what way your Greek example rebuts WD's demonstation of the lack of an ad hoc nature to the resurrection in light of its cultural and historical context. Since it has nothing to do with 1st century Palestinian culture and history, it can't. And since you've told the question has been answered, why don't you go back and look?


- Fine, it's a type.

- It's still a double standard to reject one type of evidence (historical) in one sitting, and then accept the same type of evidence (historical) in another when it happens to coincide with what you'd like to believe.
No, that would be simple prejudice. But you have absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

[AtheistArchon]

OK. As I said, it will be a while. I have up to nine rounds left to go on the current exchange.

- Take your time, please.


I neither agreed with it nor disagreed with it. As said, I merely challenged your credibility on the topic.

- Why?


How about you explain in what way your Greek example rebuts WD's demonstation of the lack of an ad hoc nature to the resurrection in light of its cultural and historical context. Since it has nothing to do with 1st century Palestinian culture and history, it can't.

- Greek mythology is not ad-hoc; it has many similarities to Christian stories. The dates and locations are irrelevant. But besides that, my point was that history is history... if we use it to determine the validity of supernatural claims, then it should be used universally, and not only when convenient.


No, that would be simple prejudice. But you have absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

- I don't? Is this not what Jason and WD imply, that we should rely upon historical evidence (i.e. not empirical evidence) when viewing the resurrection, but it does nothing when we view other religious stories?

[johnransom]

Today @ 03:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
AtheistArchon:
- Why?
As a suggestion that without the proper knowledge, you probably shouldn't take that route. Admittedly I was baiting you with it too. Not that a lack of knowledge seems to stop the average atheist from arguing.


- Greek mythology is not ad-hoc; it has many similarities to Christian stories. The dates and locations are irrelevant. But besides that, my point was that history is history... if we use it to determine the validity of supernatural claims, then it should be used universally, and not only when convenient.
See what I mean? You took my bait. You have at least three, possibly several more unsupported assertions here. You are going to have a hard time backing this up.


- I don't? Is this not what Jason and WD imply, that we should rely upon historical evidence (i.e. not empirical evidence) when viewing the resurrection, but it does nothing when we view other religious stories?
No, it isn't. I don't believe they said anything about the examination of other religious stories at all.

[Woman]

johnranson:

Jefferson's belief system is in fact a matter of serious debate, so your claim is false.

You're kidding right? There is no debate. This American founder loathed the church, formal religion and the clergy. Thomas Jefferson was a "Christian" only to the point that he admired Christ's moral teachings.

Did you know that Jefferson re-wrote the New Testament? He completely removed the miracles from the gospels, took out everything he thought had been put in by men with an agenda and gutted everything Paul wrote.

Jefferson, like most of our founding fathers was a Deist/Theist.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814



Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789


The legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


In every country and in every age, the cleric has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820


It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

Does this sound like a man who you want to label as Christian?

[Socrates]

I agree that Jefferson was not a Christian, but it's sheer revisionism to claim that he was TYPICAL of the founders. Why not cite people like Dr Benjamin Rush, a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society? And most of the signatories came from universities which were founded on openly evangelical lines and were still that way inclined, well before humanists turned the universities into centers of misotheism.

Better than the modernist revisionism by ACLU bozos are Rabbi Daniel Lapin, America's Real War, or the 19th century Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, who knew and commended America's Christian foundation.

[Pate]

If you were a member of primitive tribe, living in tropic jungle, and some person from the 'civilized world', whom you knew to be honest, would tell you that water can exist in solid form, would you need evidence of 'extraordinary' quality or amount, before you could believe what he says?

[Woman]

Pate:

If you were a member of primitive tribe, living in tropic jungle, and some person from the 'civilized world', whom you knew to be honest, would tell you that water can exist in solid form, would you need evidence of 'extraordinary' quality or amount, before you could believe what he says?

Nope!

Just show me an ice-cube. :yipee:

[Woman]

Socrates:

I agree that Jefferson was not a Christian, but it's sheer revisionism to claim that he was TYPICAL of the founders.

I didn't say it was "typical." I said...

"Jefferson, like most of our founding fathers was a Deist/Theist."

How's this? Jefferson, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist/Theist.

And I'm talking about the founders of our government - the ones your cohorts are still trying to claim as Bible thumping evangelists.


:angel:

[wienerdog]

04-04-2003 @ 01:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
sandlewood:

Would you agree then that the resurrection cannot be used as evidence for the existence of God, that we must first establish the existence of God without resorting to the resurrection as evidence? If these two claims are supporting each other simultaneously, then that is circular.

Incidentally, you’re the second person I’ve encountered in this forum who has quoted a known historical figure out of context to convey the opposite meaning the author intended. David Hume argued against a designer of nature. The passage you quote is from a section regarding polytheism in which he is saying that if one were to think nature is designed, then one should rather believe that is was a single designer than multiple designers. But Hume did not believe nature was designed at all.

Also, Jinx72 quotes Thomas Jefferson out of context in his signature. Jefferson was unquestionably a non-Christian. I pointed that out, but I assume he wants to keep it there for whatever reason.

(funny how history gets corrupted)

I'll PM you about the Hume quote. And if we're going to debate Jefferson, could we use another thread?

To answer your question, no I do not agree. I'm not arguing that God exists, and basing the plausibility of the resurrection on this. I'm arguing that if we're going to argue that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is improbable or implausible, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate this. In other words, the burden of proof shifts to you. Unless God's existence or action in the world is proven to be improbable, then the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" cannot be considered improbable. Thus, it is subject to being proved or disproved by historical investigation like any other historical claim.

Let me put this another way (this is an example I used on another discussion board): given the equation "if A then B," it's not necessary to prove B before you can look for evidence of A. If people built pyramids (A), then they had the tools and capacities to do so (B). I don't have to prove that they had the tools and capacities to build pyramids before I'm allowed to say "Look! Pyramids!"

[sandlewood]

Yesterday @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=57356#post57356)
wienerdog:
I'm arguing that if we're going to argue that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is improbable or implausible, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate this.
Although I don’t see that the Christian god is plausible, even if I did that would not mean he exists. You cannot dream up plausible entities and then claim they exist unless someone else proves they are not plausible. There are any number of plausible entities that don’t happen to exist. You need objective evidence. So far, there isn’t any objective evidence.

It’s not up to me to argue that your concept of the Christian is implausible. It’s up to you to produce objective evidence that he exists.


Unless God's existence or action in the world is proven to be improbable, then the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" cannot be considered improbable.

It sounds like you are agreeing with me then, that the resurrection cannot be used as evidence for the existence of the Christian god. You seem to say that the existence of God supports of the resurrection and not vice versa, which is what I asked.


Let me put this another way (this is an example I used on another discussion board): given the equation "if A then B," it's not necessary to prove B before you can look for evidence of A. If people built pyramids (A), then they had the tools and capacities to do so (B). I don't have to prove that they had the tools and capacities to build pyramids before I'm allowed to say "Look! Pyramids!"

This is a false analogy. The pyramids exist as objective evidence. Anyone can see and touch them. So it is reasonable to assume that they were built by people with the tools and capacity to do so. However, the resurrection is not objective evidence. It is a two-thousand-year-old word-of-mouth story about an empty tomb that people interpreted to be a resurrection.

I don’t see any point in spending time arguing about Jefferson. I would just invite anyone to do their own ten-minute web search for writings of Jefferson and make their own determination. That should convince almost anyone. Are you saying that Jinx72’s “letter to Moses Robinson” quote is not out of context?

[sandlewood]

04-06-2003 @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=57356#post57356)
wienerdog:
I'll PM you about the Hume quote. And if we're going to debate Jefferson, could we use another thread?

I never did get a PM, by the way.

[wienerdog]

I just PMed you, Sandlewood.

I'll take your last point first. The pyramid is not a false analogy, because I'm not trying to draw a parallel between the types or degree of evidence. I'm trying to draw a parallel between the presuppositions. If A presupposes B ("If A then B"), then obviously any evidence for A will ultimately also be evidence for B. But this does not in any way require one to have to prove B prior to looking for evidence for A. Thus, the hypothesis "A" presupposes the hypothesis "B", but B does not have to be established in order to prove A.

Applying it to Jesus, I don't have to have independent evidences for God's existence before I'm allowed to look for historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection. And unless God's existence or action in the world (B) is shown to be improbable, we can't say prior to investigation that Jesus' resurrection (A) is improbable.

So Jesus' resurrection is obviously unusual, out of the ordinary, etc. But it can't be considered improbable or implausible, and thus, I contend that it does not require a higher degree of historical evidence than any other alleged event. So it IS up to you to prove God's non-existence or inaction. You have the burden of proof at this point. I don't have to presuppose the Christian concept of God (B) before looking at the historical evidence, but you DO have to prove God's non-existence in order to claim that it would require a higher degree of evidence than any other event.

[Woman]

weiner

Could you put that into words? The if A then B thing, as applied to the resurrection?

You said that "If man built the pyramids then he had the means to do it."

What is the equal statement regarding the resurrection?

I mean, barring biological pyramids, aliens or magic then man DID build the pyramids and thus had the means.

[wienerdog]

Sorry.

A = "people built pyramids" and "God raised Jesus from the dead"
B = "they had the tools and capacities to do so" and "God exists"

If A then B. That is, A presupposes B. If A is true, then B is true.

If people built pyramids (A), then they had the tools and capacities to do so (B).

If God raised Jesus from the dead (A), then God exists (B).

Clear as mud?

[WinAce]

The existence of disembodied minds with magical comic-book superpowers is unlikely due to mind-brain dependance, hence, unless independent evidence of that phenomenon is provided, one won't be able to assume it to explain any phenomena.

[wienerdog]

That's the stuff. If you give arguments like WinAce, you can have grounds for calling Jesus' resurrection improbable.


Today @ 03:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60309#post60309)
WinAce:

The existence of disembodied minds with magical comic-book superpowers is unlikely due to mind-brain dependance, hence, unless independent evidence of that phenomenon is provided, one won't be able to assume it to explain any phenomena.

First, "magical comic-book superpowers" is ungracious, and I think you know that. Second, we should probably start another thread to discuss the "mind-brain dependence" issue, but for now I'll just say that most philosophers don't consider this the problem that you do. The very best you can do is to say that it's a debated issue. Third, just to clarify, I don't need to assume God's existence, I need to assume the possibility of God's existence.

[WinAce]

Actually, if we're to go that route, I'd say that the Gospels aren't sufficient to conclude any divine manifestations occured as described even if a god exists. Unless we lower our burden of proof to where we have no choice but to conclude that cows gave birth to lambs, giant man-eating ants existed, UFOs abduct rednecks...

The "magical comic-book superpowers" bit was inspired by the Adventures of God-Man (http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html).

Mind-brain dependence is a very damaging problem for the existence of a supposedly eternal soul; the fact that all minds we've yet seen are based on physical brains is a powerful argument against disembodied spirits in general. But that's stuff for a different thread, I suppose.

Also, can I assume Leprechauns exist because I want to explain pots of gold at the end of the rainbow? Please? :)

[wienerdog]

I suggest you go back over this thread, where I argued that Jesus' resurrection is not ad hoc, whereas the examples you're giving are completely ad hoc.

I'd also point out 1) that the gospels are comparable to the historical records that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and 2) the 1 Cor 15 creed is dated by almost all scholars to within a few years (the mid-30s AD) to the events it describes.

[WinAce]

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60462#post60462)
wienerdog:

I suggest you go back over this thread, where I argued that Jesus' resurrection is not ad hoc, whereas the examples you're giving are completely ad hoc.

Being given a set of magical golden plates in the forest or being anally probed by little green extraterrestrials is somewhat ad hoc too - what's your point? That the most bizarre claims are true?


I'd also point out 1) that the gospels are comparable to the historical records that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon

You wish! Since this must be a joke, I must admit it was good.


and 2) the 1 Cor 15 creed is dated by almost all scholars to within a few years (the mid-30s AD) to the events it describes.

Lots of people thought the Blessed Virgin appeared to them at fatima on the same day it happened, not years afterwards. Your point is? That doesn't change the fact they were gawking at sunlight.

[sandlewood]

After re-reading your post I realized that your first pyramid premise was not “the pyramids exist” as I stated, but rather it was “the pyramids were built by people”. My mistake. So I won’t say that it was a false analogy.

Of course, you are free to look for evidence of the resurrection of Jesus whether there is proof of God or not. I’m not saying you can’t. What I’m saying is two things: (1) that you cannot use the existence of God as the only evidence of Jesus’ resurrection until God is shown to exist, and (2) you cannot use Jesus’ resurrection as the only evidence that God exists until his resurrection is shown to be true. They cannot be the only evidences for each other.

The reason I say this is because I suspect that some people believe God exists because of the resurrection, and at the same time they believe the resurrection is true because God exists. But if neither of these assertions have any other evidence, then you need to recognize that this is circular reasoning and that the claims alone don’t support each other. That would be like saying “people must have had tools for building pyramids because they did build them’ and simultaneously “people must have built the pyramids because they had the tools” without any other independent objective evidence.

The burden of proof does rest with the person making the claim, in this case the theist. The question of the Christian god’s existence is an either-or question. Either he exists or he doesn’t. For the sake of argument, assume that he doesn’t. What evidence would you expect to find to support this? There is no specific evidence. It’s the lack of evidence for the existence of God that counts for something. This is why it is up to the theist to produce evidence. Keep in mind that if the burden of proof were on the atheist, then the Christian would also shoulder the burden of proof to show that other things do not exist, such as Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Jupiter, Mohammad, leprechauns, trolls, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, and a second moon orbiting the Earth. That would clearly be impractical.

Therefore, you cannot say that the resurrection of Jesus is likely because God exists until you can show that God exists. I realize you are saying that the likelihood of Jesus’ resurrection is based on the likelihood of God’s existence, which you believe to be high. But there are two problems with this. One, the likelihood of God’s existence is not high because there is no objective evidence of his existence. Two, since God is defined to be omnipotent, then anything at all could be claimed to be true. No claim would be too wild. That does not lead you to distinguishing truth from non-truth.


Yesterday @ 11:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59999#post59999)
wienerdog:
A = "people built pyramids" and "God raised Jesus from the dead"
B = "they had the tools and capacities to do so" and "God exists"

If A then B. That is, A presupposes B. If A is true, then B is true.

If people built pyramids (A), then they had the tools and capacities to do so (B).

If God raised Jesus from the dead (A), then God exists (B).

Clear as mud?
I think you got some of this incorrect. Although, it probably doesn’t matter since I got your essential point above.

If A then B, then we say B presupposes A, not the other way around. That is, B presupposes A means that B depends on A. This led to some confusion about which order you have things. But based on that last sentence, you are obviously basing the existence of God of the evidence of the resurrection, not the other way around as I had it earlier in this post.

So, similarly, what I say is that you therefore cannot simultaneously claim that the only evidence of the resurrection is God’s existence. Moreover, another point to be made here is that even if you did have strong evidence that a dead man came back to life after being dead three days, that would still be far from proving that a god exists, let alone the Christian god. There would still be other, more likely possibilities.

[wienerdog]

Today @ 07:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60466#post60466)
WinAce:



Being given a set of magical golden plates in the forest or being anally probed by little green extraterrestrials is somewhat ad hoc too - what's your point? That the most bizarre claims are true?
I think you misunderstood. I'm saying that Jesus' resurrection is not ad hoc, whereas your examples are.


You wish! Since this must be a joke, I must admit it was good.
"Many people have cited Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River as he returned from Gaul to Italy in 49 BC as a model of an incontrovertible historical fact from the ancient world that also had historic significance: with that deed Caesar committed himself to civil war, and the course of the Roman empire was forever altered. What is often overlooked is that we are not absolutely sure of the date of the crossing or the location of the Rubicon. And, as with the Gospels, we have four accounts of the event from later historians--Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Appian. Only the first of these was even born before the mid-first century after Christ. All apparently relied on one eyewitness source, that of Asinius Pollio, which has disappeared without a trace. Yet the four accounts vary at least as much as the Gospels do when reporting the same event. One writer, Suetonius, attributes Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon to seeing "an apparition of superhuman size and beauty," who was "sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe."

"When this kind of miraculous detail appears in a Gospel account, the entire story is usually rejected as mythical. Here it appears in an account of an event that is regularly cited as one of the most well-established historical facts of antiquity! Clearly a double standard is at work here." (Craig Blomberg, "Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?" in Jesus Under Fire)


Lots of people thought the Blessed Virgin appeared to them at fatima on the same day it happened, not years afterwards. Your point is? That doesn't change the fact they were gawking at sunlight.
My point is that Jesus' resurrection appearances were not "visions" like Fatima was. That people experienced what they understood to be Jesus risen from the dead is almost universally acknowledged by scholars. Very few are willing to accept that these were hallucinations.

[WinAce]

Today @ 02:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60475#post60475)
wienerdog:

I think you misunderstood. I'm saying that Jesus' resurrection is not ad hoc, whereas your examples are.

And that makes it more credible because __________?


"Many people have cited Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River as he returned from Gaul to Italy in 49 BC as a model of an incontrovertible historical fact from the ancient world that also had historic significance: with that deed Caesar committed himself to civil war, and the course of the Roman empire was forever altered. What is often overlooked is that we are not absolutely sure of the date of the crossing or the location of the Rubicon. And, as with the Gospels, we have four accounts of the event from later historians--Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Appian. Only the first of these was even born before the mid-first century after Christ. All apparently relied on one eyewitness source, that of Asinius Pollio, which has disappeared without a trace. Yet the four accounts vary at least as much as the Gospels do when reporting the same event. One writer, Suetonius, attributes Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon to seeing "an apparition of superhuman size and beauty," who was "sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe."

"When this kind of miraculous detail appears in a Gospel account, the entire story is usually rejected as mythical. Here it appears in an account of an event that is regularly cited as one of the most well-established historical facts of antiquity! Clearly a double standard is at work here." (Craig Blomberg, "Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?" in Jesus Under Fire)

Richard Carrier ably demolishes this claim here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html):

"First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years. On the other hand, not only do we not have anything written by Jesus, but we don't even have anything written by anyone who actually knew him--unless we accept the questionable authenticity of some of the non-Pauline epistles, but they don't describe the resurrection and thus present no direct evidence of that event anyway.

Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, reporting the event, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until long after the Christian's own claims had been printed and widely spread across the whole Empire.

Third, we have a huge number of inscriptions produced in the very same years of the Republican Civil War attesting to the event, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which in fact form a continuous chain of evidence for Caesar's entire march. We also have coins referring to the event. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

Fourth, we have the story of the Rubicon crossing in every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Tacitus, Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a regular desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources which were written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions. Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single prominent historian mentioning the event,[/b] and of those few people who do bother to mention it, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit (which could in turn be tested for accuracy by comparison with other evidence), and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.

Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. [b]On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon."


My point is that Jesus' resurrection appearances were not "visions" like Fatima was.

A statement of "500 witnesses" from one person to a group of people a trillion kilometers away in the ancient world that doesn't name anyone, can't be cross-examined and doesn't even mention specific details is not particularly good evidence to base an extraordinary claim on, you know.


That people experienced what they understood to be Jesus risen from the dead is almost universally acknowledged by scholars. Very few are willing to accept that these were hallucinations.

Who said they were hallucinations? Fatima sure wasn't. Even if Paul's suspicious invocation of "500 witnesses" was based on a real event, people can attribute the most mundane things to the paranormal should they have a reason. Dozens of Mormons (allegedly) heard the voice of post-mortem Joseph Smith speaking thru their pastor, but that doesn't mean they were mass hallucinating or Satan was deceiving them.

[wienerdog]

For anyone interested, I've changed my signature. Sandlewood correctly reproached me, and after a short discussion with him via PMs, I recognize his concerns. Any impressions I gave that Hume was a theist rather than an agnostic or deist (that issue is debated) was unintentional, and I apologize to everyone.

[wienerdog]

Wienerdog: I think you misunderstood. I'm saying that Jesus' resurrection is not ad hoc, whereas your examples are.

WinAce: And that makes it more credible because __________?

it's less ad hoc. The more ad hoc something is, the less credible it is. That's at least partially what "ad hoc" means.

[wienerdog]

Regarding Carrier's first four points: I'm unaware of any references in the writings of Caesar or Cicero about Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. I'm also unaware of any inscriptions, coins, or statues which represent it. According to the quote I supplied, the event is only referred to by four authors (Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Appian), only one of whom was born before AD 50, and all of whom used the same source (Asinius Pollio). Unless Carrier supplies particular references, I would have to simply deny his claim that this provides superior evidence than the gospels.

Regarding his fifth point, "the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy," a parallel argument has been made with Jesus and Christian history. Belief that Jesus was raised from the dead arose immediately in Jerusalem following his crucifixion. "C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing, in terms of prior historical influences, can account for--apart from the resurrection itself." (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?)

You also stated that the resurrection appearances weren't hallucinations. I would just point out that they were experienced by Jesus' friends and family. They experienced something which they thought was Jesus alive from the dead. If it wasn't Jesus or a hallucination, what was it? An evil twin?

At any rate, we're digressing from the point of this thread. I'm not arguing about the historical evidence for Jesus, but whether the resurrection hypothesis can be considered extraordinary in the sense of being improbable or ad hoc. If it's not, my claim is that you only need the same degree of historical evidence as you would for any other alleged event.

Man, my new signature is just too long, isn't it?

[WinAce]

How to Collect Ancient Roman Coins (PDF File) (http://www.littletoncoin.com/pdf/Ancient_Coins_v3.pdf)

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, marched on Rome and drove the great general Pompey into
Greece, he financed this invasion and secured the loyalty of his troops by striking silver denarii. These historic Roman coins have his name and an elephant trampling a snake
on the obverse. Many numismatists believe the snake represents Salus, god of safety, and the elephant represents Pompey.


Cassius Dio, Roman History Book XLI (http://www.ibiscom.com/caesar.htm):

And they voted that Caesar should surrender his office to his successors and dismiss his legions by a given day, or else be considered an enemy, because acting contrary to the interests of the country.

When Caesar was informed of this, he came to Ariminum, then for the first time overstepping the confines of his own province, and after assembling his soldiers he ordered Curio and the others who had come with him to relate to them what had been done. After this was over he further aroused them by adding such words as the occasion demanded. Next he set out and marched straight upon Rome itself, winning over all the cities on the way without any conflict, since the garrisons either abandoned them, because they were powerless to resist, or preferred his cause.

That website you read wasn't presenting all the information, apparently. Since it failed to mention either Cassius Dio, coins or other materials alluding to the Rubicon crossing, I see no reason to dig up any more info.

As Richard Carrier has already noted, the mere belief in a Resurrection would have sufficed to explain any of the history associated with Christianity. Conversely, the mere belief in a Rubicon crossing would not have sufficed to overthrow Caesar's enemies and establish his rule over all of Rome.

Furthermore, military victories happen all the time. Guys coming back to life happen more rarely. Guys coming back to life after 3 days is almost unheard of.

Finally, I would love to know how a dead man coming back to life is in any way "more credible" and "less ad hoc" than a set of magical golden plates being unearthed by a local con artist.

FYI - supposing the gospels are accurate depictions of events in the life of Jesus the man, which I'm currently undecided on due to their sectarian nature and propensity of the authors to embellish with hidden theological messages, the bizarre paranormal parts still carry no more weight as evidence than L. Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology-authored biography that had him healing his WW2 combat wounds with mental powers and psychically visiting the Van Allen radiation belt.

Nothing paranormal is required to explain people thinking someone came back from the dead. Something as simple as a eucharist taken under emotional conditions or the Fatima incident could account for the origin of the "masses of people saw Jesus" myth.

[wienerdog]

WinAce: If I've given any misinformation here, I will apologize and retract it. I'm not a scholar of ancient literature by any stretch of the imagination.

However, I still see a problem. The coin in question did not represent Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, but an elephant trampling a snake and Caesar's name. The quote from Cassius Dio does not mention the crossing of the Rubicon, even if we know from other sources that this event took place at this time. The quote I supplied earlier isn't from a website, but from an article in a book.

I concede the point that Roman history wasn't caused by a belief in Caesar's crossing, but by the event itself, whereas Christian history is explained by belief in Jesus' resurrection. I stated that poorly. I would still maintain, however, that we have to explain how belief in Jesus' resurrection arose immediately after it supposedly took place. As I stated earlier, the friends and family of Jesus experienced what they understood to be appearances of him alive from the dead. You agreed it wasn't a hallucination earlier, but your statement about taking the eucharist under emotional conditions seems to suggest it. If it wasn't actually Jesus, I don't see what it was that these people could have experienced which led them to believe in Jesus' resurrection.

Your other comments boil down to the claims that the resurrection is improbable (since other events, like military expeditions, happen frequently) or ad hoc. This was discussed on this thread a few pages back, so I suggest you review them and tell me why you think these answers are insufficient. I think this will also answer why I don't think the gospel miracles are "bizarre" as you put it. I think by calling them "bizarre" you're implying that they're ad hoc.

[AtheistArchon]

- Hmm. What makes a claim ad-hoc in this context? This might be an issue.

- To me, I lump the resurrection in with other similar events. Why? Because they're similar. Yet none of us here believe in any number of other supernatural claims... why not? Are they different somehow?

- I think the term "ad-hoc" is being taken to mean something equal to "made up", which is not necessarily the case. After all, we can't put our conclusion before our argument, and we can't assume it didn't happen (or did happen) a-priori, because then there would be no discussion. So is it disagreeable to associate the resurrection with other supernatural claims? If so, why?

[wienerdog]

04-09-2003 @ 07:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60470#post60470)
sandlewood:

Of course, you are free to look for evidence of the resurrection of Jesus whether there is proof of God or not. I’m not saying you can’t. What I’m saying is two things: (1) that you cannot use the existence of God as the only evidence of Jesus’ resurrection until God is shown to exist,
I wouldn't do this though. I would use historical evidence as evidence of Jesus' resurrection.


and (2) you cannot use Jesus’ resurrection as the only evidence that God exists until his resurrection is shown to be true. They cannot be the only evidences for each other.

The reason I say this is because I suspect that some people believe God exists because of the resurrection, and at the same time they believe the resurrection is true because God exists.
Sure, probably. Actually, I suspect most of the people who believe in God and the resurrection are motivated by personal experiences rather than philosophical or historical arguments.


But if neither of these assertions have any other evidence, then you need to recognize that this is circular reasoning and that the claims alone don’t support each other. That would be like saying “people must have had tools for building pyramids because they did build them’ and simultaneously “people must have built the pyramids because they had the tools” without any other independent objective evidence.
Right. I'm just saying that evidence that the pyramids had been built would qualify as other independent objective evidence. Similarly, historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection would be other independent objective evidence.


The burden of proof does rest with the person making the claim,
I agree with this.


in this case the theist.
But not with this. The claim in question here is not "God exists" (if it were, you'd be right), but "God doesn't exist" or "God doesn't act in the world" (or "probably doesn't") That's the point. Unless one of those two points are proven, miracles cannot be considered improbable. I'm arguing from the position that "God may exist and act in the world, or he may not; let's look at the historical evidence to see if he has."


Therefore, you cannot say that the resurrection of Jesus is likely because God exists until you can show that God exists. I realize you are saying that the likelihood of Jesus’ resurrection is based on the likelihood of God’s existence, which you believe to be high.
I'm not though. What I'm saying is the UNlikelihood of Jesus' resurrection is based on the UNlikelihood of God's existence. If we can't say anything about the unlikelihood of God's existence, neither can we say anything about the unlikelihood of Jesus' resurrection. I don't have to consider the likelihood of God's existence to be high to allow whatever historical evidence there might be convince me that the resurrection took place (and then that God exists).


since God is defined to be omnipotent, then anything at all could be claimed to be true. No claim would be too wild. That does not lead you to distinguishing truth from non-truth.
That's an excellent point. That's why I'm saying that the other claims that have been made (like aliens, etc) are ad hoc rather than improbable. Sure, any claim can be made, but they would probably be ad hoc, whereas the resurrection is not.


If A then B, then we say B presupposes A, not the other way around. That is, B presupposes A means that B depends on A. This led to some confusion about which order you have things. But based on that last sentence, you are obviously basing the existence of God of the evidence of the resurrection, not the other way around as I had it earlier in this post.
"If A then B" is a logical equation. You're thinking of it as a cause and effect relationship. If A causes B, then yeah, you're right, B presupposes A. But as a logical equation, it would just be if the condition "A" is true, then the condition "B" is true as well. A's truth is based on B's truth (logically, not temporally).


Moreover, another point to be made here is that even if you did have strong evidence that a dead man came back to life after being dead three days, that would still be far from proving that a god exists, let alone the Christian god. There would still be other, more likely possibilities.

I suspect these possibilities would be more ad hoc than that God raised Jesus from the dead, but I'd have to see them first.

Good points! You're helping me hone my thoughts on this.

[wienerdog]

Today @ 06:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62659#post62659)
AtheistArchon:

- Hmm. What makes a claim ad-hoc in this context? This might be an issue.
The lack of a context. That's probably what I'll keep coming back to in discussion of ad hoc-ness. Context, context, context.


- To me, I lump the resurrection in with other similar events. Why? Because they're similar. Yet none of us here believe in any number of other supernatural claims... why not? Are they different somehow?
I suspect (again, I'd have to see them first) that they would be different in two ways: 1) that they don't have the same level of historical evidence as the resurrection, and 2) that they didn't occur within a historical context as deep as the one the resurrection occurred in.


- I think the term "ad-hoc" is being taken to mean something equal to "made up", which is not necessarily the case. After all, we can't put our conclusion before our argument, and we can't assume it didn't happen (or did happen) a-priori, because then there would be no discussion. So is it disagreeable to associate the resurrection with other supernatural claims? If so, why?
Good point, I have been taking it that way. I would just ask if the other supernatural claims have the two differences above. If they don't differ from the resurrection in these ways, I would say no, it isn't disagreeable to associate the resurrection with them.