criteria for "Extraordinary..."? [Archive]

jason

April 1st 2003, 09:45 AM

- Do you believe I went to Mars yesterday?
What can you offer as evidence ? The question is not, "Why do you demand evidence", the question is, "Why do you set the bar for evidence at a height that is conveniently unreachable by any historical means ?"

- And this is OUR problem?
Yes it is. You make the claim, "I need extraordinary evidence". If you do not know what is extraordinary evidence then how do you know it when you see it. You must have some idea or the whole claim is nothing more than a dodge. "I'll know it when I see it" is just a convenient dodge that amounts to, "I'll just say anything you present is insuffcient". Why are "skeptics" so reluctant to put it on the line and make a claim in advance as to what evidence would qualify, and to make the demand reasonable in light of this being a historic event ?

- Well, speaking personally, I could give you a list of things that you could show me that would indeed convince me that Jesus came back to life after three days.
Really ? Go on then.

The starting point, however, would be to demonstrate that such a thing is possible in the first place.
Done. If God exists then this would be no problem at all for him. Now that you know it is possible.

Claiming that it was a one time only event doesn't impact my skepticism, and it's not our fault that there isn't any empirical evidence of the event.
But demanding evidence of a type that cannot by definition be available is your fault and does suggest that you are not really interested in looking to closely and any talk of desiring to do so is simple dishonesty. (Be it of us or of yourself).

- As for looking closely... what shall I look at? The bible?
Good a place as any. But again, you wont consider the question, "What would the record of a miracle look like", you will start with the assumption that such things are a priori impossible, trot out some silliness about never seeing a miracle and mistaking that for a valid criticism, and then end up thinking that your denial is somehow open minded and reasonable, rather than little more than bigoted presupposition.

Or perhaps you could surprise me. Although that would be the first in quite a while. :eek:

Jason

AtheistArchon

April 1st 2003, 10:25 AM

What can you offer as evidence ? The question is not, "Why do you demand evidence", the question is, "Why do you set the bar for evidence at a height that is conveniently unreachable by any historical means ?"

- But not all extraordinary claims are nonfalsifiable. Most religious ones are, yes, but again that's not our fault. For example, I can claim that I have an invisible dragon on my shoulder that flies away whenever someone reaches out to touch him, he emits no heat, and so on. What evidence can I offer you to convince you? None whatsoever... but this isn't YOUR problem.

Yes it is. You make the claim, "I need extraordinary evidence".

- And so do you. So does everyone when presented with an extraordinary claim. You do not believe that I went to Mars yesterday, do you?

If you do not know what is extraordinary evidence then how do you know it when you see it.

- Aha! But I can offer you extraordinary evidence of my trip to Mars. I could give you a ride there in my spaceship! If I could do that, then that would be extraordinary evidence. Not every claim is nonfalsifiable! And those that are are not the fault of the skeptic.

Done. If God exists then this would be no problem at all for him. Now that you know it is possible.

- "God exists"... another extraordinary claim, I'm afraid. I can't simply take your word for this. :smile:

- This would be like me telling you "If I have a spaceship, then I CAN travel to Mars. Now you know it's possible."

But demanding evidence of a type that cannot by definition be available is your fault

- No! It's not your fault that my dragon claim is nonfalsifiable... you are 100% justified in not believing me. Aren't you?

Good a place as any. But again, you wont consider the question, "What would the record of a miracle look like", you will start with the assumption that such things are a priori impossible, trot out some silliness about never seeing a miracle and mistaking that for a valid criticism, and then end up thinking that your denial is somehow open minded and reasonable, rather than little more than bigoted presupposition.

- Please, let's not be hypocritical here. Until you answer my claim about going to Mars, we're BOTH IN THE SAME BOAT. We're both skeptics... you about my claim, and me about yours.

- My claim happens to be falsifiable, yours (the resurrection) does not. Likewise, my dragon on my shoulder is nonfalsifiable. Shall I blame YOU for not telling me what kind of evidence I can show you for my dragon?

Vorkosigan

April 1st 2003, 11:23 AM

I think the resurrection is extraordinary, but when ever you ask a "skeptic" (there is a misnomer) what they think would be suitable evidence they never seem to be able to give an answer.

I have no idea what would be suitable evidence of a violation of natural law. Obviously no serious historian considers the 30-odd gospels and other early Christian writings evidence of anything other than their writers' beliefs. That is the same formula applied to any ancient claim of miracles.

Surely they have some idea what would count as evidence of Christs resurrection. Or is it just excuse making in an effort to not have to look to closely?

LOL. Jason -- are you the Poster Formerly Known as Svensky? -- we don't need to erect some criteria that you have to satisfy. You're the one with the claim "Jesus was Resurrected from the Dead." So bring on the evidence. If it is the early christian writings; forget it. Lots of ancient writers attest to miracles, and not a single one is taken seriously by historians.

Vorkosigan

Sheepdog

April 1st 2003, 01:24 PM

Today @ 08:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50177#post50177)
AtheistArchon:

- But ECREE isn't about the truth of a claim, it's about the believability. "I went to Mars yesterday" could be completely true, regardless of whether or not you believe me. But you don't believe me... do you.

granted. it isn't a good one the, since anyone can abuse the ambiguity of "extraordinary" by moving the goal posts, etc. (i.e. show me your space ship [you show it to me]; now show me the thing can go into space [again]; now show me you can get to mars at a rate where your food supply won't run out; etc.)

- It depends upon personal preference, of course. Obviously, some people do NOT think that resurrection is an extraordinary claim, or if they do, they don't believe that ECREE applies. However, the vast majority of these people also DO apply ECREE when I make similar claims... like going to Mars.

well, the question then becomes, why is one claim more extraordinary than another? if i have a predisposition in favor of supernatural events but not space flight, then simply because of that predisposition i am justified in applying ECREE in an unbalanced manner. hence, ECREE isn't based on any rational method of determining truth, but on the whimsy of the individual.

- Well, do you believe I went to Mars?

of course not. but of course, you would have to show me some reasonable evidence (what, you think the only alternative to atheism is gullibility? :smile: )

let's spin this around a bit. being a skeptic, you wouldn't find it extraordinary that the Resurrection turned out to be a myth. so, if a fellow skeptic said he has irrefutable evidence the Res to be a myth, but didsn't go into detail, would you simply accept the Res is a myth? why or why not?

- By asking you what else you find "ordinary". If being dead for three days and coming back to life is an ordinary occurance to you, then perhaps me travelling to Mars is ordinary as well. Where do we draw the line? How exactly do you (as a believer) know truth from fiction?

exactly, where does one draw the line? i believe that Darwinian Evolution would be an amazing feat. therfore, i demand to see homomid-like organism evolve from a petry dish of organic material. :teeth:

now on a serious note, i, as a believer, seek to classify things into 3 groups: true, false, and don't care. don't care is reserved as a filter to dump truth claims that would have no relavent bearing to me. if a complete stranger started making a scene about him traveling to mars, i would classify his statement int he don't care category. to me, it is neither true nor false, but i simply don't have the time to determine its merit.

however, if a team credited astronauts at NASA claim to have landed on Mars, i the would be interested, but mainly because of my interests in astronomy.

so in the meantime, those claims that i detemine are worth my time, i research, trying to find whatever evidence is available (scientific, historical, socialogical, archeological, eyewitness testimony, etc., as relavent). if the available evidence is unilaterally in favor, i accept the truth claim. if there is conflicting evidence, i consider multiple alternatives, and accept the one that the evidence best supports.

Sheepdog

April 1st 2003, 01:39 PM

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50220#post50220)
Vorkosigan:

I think the resurrection is extraordinary, but when ever you ask a &quot;skeptic&quot; (there is a misnomer) what they think would be suitable evidence they never seem to be able to give an answer.

I have no idea what would be suitable evidence of a violation of natural law. Obviously no serious historian considers the 30-odd gospels and other early Christian writings evidence of anything other than their writers' beliefs. That is the same formula applied to any ancient claim of miracles.

of course, you assume without justification that a miracle has to be a violation of a natural law (is it a violation of natural law that i intervene and stop an apple from falling ot the earth?).

but that aside, you poisoned the well be classifying any historian who accepts the gospel of Christ as being unserious. obviously, you post shows total ingorance about how historians truely examine ancient texts.

Surely they have some idea what would count as evidence of Christs resurrection. Or is it just excuse making in an effort to not have to look to closely?

LOL. Jason -- are you the Poster Formerly Known as Svensky? -- we don't need to erect some criteria that you have to satisfy. You're the one with the claim "Jesus was Resurrected from the Dead." So bring on the evidence. If it is the early christian writings; forget it. Lots of ancient writers attest to miracles, and not a single one is taken seriously by historians.

actually, according to Pascal's wager, it is you who should be researching theism claims (not that PW is proof of God; all PW is is a logical reason for skeptics to gut off their bums and determine once and for all whether they are right or wrong). not that you care, you poisoned the historical well so bad, even the dogs won't drink the water from it.

WinAce

April 1st 2003, 01:42 PM

being a skeptic, you wouldn't find it extraordinary that the Resurrection turned out to be a myth.

Yes, not at all.

so, if a fellow skeptic said he has irrefutable evidence the Res to be a myth, but didsn't go into detail, would you simply accept the Res is a myth? why or why not?

No, a person's word that he found a way to falsify a non-falsifiable miracle claim from 2000 years ago isn't good enough evidence to believe he did. Why do you ask?

Sheepdog

April 1st 2003, 02:48 PM

Today @ 12:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50321#post50321)
WinAce:

No, a person's word that he found a way to falsify a non-falsifiable miracle claim from 2000 years ago isn't good enough evidence to believe he did. Why do you ask?

falsify? we are talking about evidence, not proof. although proof is within the category of evidence, not all evidence is proof. that said, the claim to a miracle would not be falsified, merely the "Resurrection myth hypothesis" would be shown to be more probable given such evidence. for instance, if the original copy of Q was found that portrayed Jesus as a wisdom teacher who was killed for instigating an insurrection, and that the tomb had a body in it when the women arrived: wouldn't that vindicate the Res myth hypothesis? of course it is possible that Q is wrong and the Gospels are right, but i doubt skeptics would believe that.

now, a find of Q would be extraordinary. however, there are plenty of skeptic sites out there claiming more subtle evidence in favor of the myth hypothesis. without putting any of these site under sctrutiny, would you accept their claims, just because? if not, then you will understand why i reject that AA went to mars without evoking ECREE.

AtheistArchon

April 1st 2003, 03:28 PM

granted. it isn't a good one the, since anyone can abuse the ambiguity of "extraordinary" by moving the goal posts, etc. (i.e. show me your space ship [you show it to me]; now show me the thing can go into space [again]; now show me you can get to mars at a rate where your food supply won't run out; etc.)

- Yes, that's true, each person will require a different level of convincing. However, if I really did go to Mars, I should be able to show you all the things you ask for. :smile:

- The dragon of course is a different story.

well, the question then becomes, why is one claim more extraordinary than another? if i have a predisposition in favor of supernatural events but not space flight, then simply because of that predisposition i am justified in applying ECREE in an unbalanced manner. hence, ECREE isn't based on any rational method of determining truth, but on the whimsy of the individual.

- Well, we can guage it on how often it happens, for one thing. Or, we can apply knowledge we already have, like "there is currently no technology which allows us to travel to Mars and back in a day". Or, we can apply the laws of physics.

- Being predisposed to supernatural events is okay, but even then you must have some way of separating the chaff from the wheat. You don't believe all supernatural claims, yes? How can you tell the myth from the fact?

of course not. but of course, you would have to show me some reasonable evidence (what, you think the only alternative to atheism is gullibility? :smile: )

- Not at all. :thumb: And I agree.

let's spin this around a bit. being a skeptic, you wouldn't find it extraordinary that the Resurrection turned out to be a myth. so, if a fellow skeptic said he has irrefutable evidence the Res to be a myth, but didsn't go into detail, would you simply accept the Res is a myth? why or why not?

- Hhmm, this may be an issue of burden of proof. For example, I consider any supernatural claim to be false (or mythic) because of the nature of the claim (more than natural). This goes for more than just the resurrection, of course. I can be convinced, however. It would take a lot of evidence, but I can be convinced.

exactly, where does one draw the line? i believe that Darwinian Evolution would be an amazing feat. therfore, i demand to see homomid-like organism evolve from a petry dish of organic material. :teeth:

- If you and I had several million years to conduct the experiment, this might be a viable option. :smile: However, not even I require first hand empricism about the resurrection... empirical evidence will do. And we do have empirical evidence that Darwinism (specifically neo-darwinism) is correct. The details are another thread, of course.

now on a serious note, i, as a believer, seek to classify things into 3 groups: true, false, and don't care. don't care is reserved as a filter to dump truth claims that would have no relavent bearing to me. if a complete stranger started making a scene about him traveling to mars, i would classify his statement int he don't care category. to me, it is neither true nor false, but i simply don't have the time to determine its merit.

however, if a team credited astronauts at NASA claim to have landed on Mars, i the would be interested, but mainly because of my interests in astronomy.

so in the meantime, those claims that i detemine are worth my time, i research, trying to find whatever evidence is available (scientific, historical, socialogical, archeological, eyewitness testimony, etc., as relavent). if the available evidence is unilaterally in favor, i accept the truth claim. if there is conflicting evidence, i consider multiple alternatives, and accept the one that the evidence best supports.

- An agreeable stance. I use nearly the same method.

of course, you assume without justification that a miracle has to be a violation of a natural law (is it a violation of natural law that i intervene and stop an apple from falling ot the earth?).

- If miracles are natural happenings, then why can't we detect them?

- You can intervene on the apple, but then again we all *saw* you reach out and catch it. We can tell that this is the reason it didn't hit the ground. And besides, you catching the apple is easily demonstratable. :smile:

but that aside, you poisoned the well be classifying any historian who accepts the gospel of Christ as being unserious. obviously, you post shows total ingorance about how historians truely examine ancient texts.

- Actually, I tend to agree with Vork. Ancient texts cannot be taken to be literal truth; we only have insight as to what the writer was thinking. From that point, you may draw conclusions...

actually, according to Pascal's wager, it is you who should be researching theism claims (not that PW is proof of God; all PW is is a logical reason for skeptics to gut off their bums and determine once and for all whether they are right or wrong). not that you care, you poisoned the historical well so bad, even the dogs won't drink the water from it.

- Pascal's Wager motivates skeptics to research? How so?

without putting any of these site under sctrutiny, would you accept their claims, just because? if not, then you will understand why i reject that AA went to mars without evoking ECREE.

- Whoaaa, wait... you reject my claim because... why again? Because you don't care if it's true or not? Or because I don't have any evidence to back it up? (ECREE?)

jason

April 1st 2003, 06:30 PM

- But not all extraordinary claims are nonfalsifiable. Most religious ones are, yes, but again that's not our fault. For example, I can claim that I have an invisible dragon on my shoulder that flies away whenever someone reaches out to touch him, he emits no heat, and so on. What evidence can I offer you to convince you? None whatsoever... but this isn't YOUR problem.
But this is a false analogy. I am not telling you in regards the resurrection that I have no evidence or that the evidence only consists of the words of the bible.

There are other lines of evidence including all of the events we see surrounding the resurrection event.

To insist that I am defending the resurrection in the same way you are defending your dragon hypothesis is insulting to say the least.

- And so do you. So does everyone when presented with an extraordinary claim. You do not believe that I went to Mars yesterday, do you?
What evidence can you produce that you went ? You might have. You have offered nothing in defence of the idea that you went to mars yesterday. I am open to the possibility (however unlikely) that you did provided you have any evidence at all.

But again, this is a false analogy, because I am not asking you to simply take my word or even just the word of the disciples, for the resurrection.

- Aha! But I can offer you extraordinary evidence of my trip to Mars. I could give you a ride there in my spaceship! If I could do that, then that would be extraordinary evidence.
you could simply produce a rock from mars. That is not extraordinary at all, but barring any going missing from stocks we have on earth (if we do, I can't remember) then that would not be extraordinary evidence at all. It would be quite mundane, but it would offer evidence that you have been where you claim.

Not every claim is nonfalsifiable! And those that are are not the fault of the skeptic.
The resurrection account is falsifiable. You can't have looked to cloesly to claim that it is not. We see a number of "historic ripples" emantating from some event 2000 years ago. This you cannot deny. Something happened, this is not in question, there is plenty of evidence to attest to that fact. The question is what.

So you can easily falsify my claim that the resurrection did not happen by producing a more plausible account of the events in question.

But if you have to invoke something akin to "time travelling insurance salesmans led by a clone of elvis, who faked the resurrection and the rise of christianity to get the 'Act of God' clause into insurance law" then why should I listen to your alternative.

But you can offer an alternative and we can compare the plausibility of the alternatives to see what happened. This is SOP for a court of law. Or don't law courts work at all ?

- "God exists"... another extraordinary claim, I'm afraid. I can't simply take your word for this. :smile:
You don't have to. I said if. If God does exist then the event in question would be no problem for him at all.

- This would be like me telling you "If I have a spaceship, then I CAN travel to Mars. Now you know it's possible."
Yes exactly. But I am not claiming that the mere possibility of a resurrection means one happened, I am saying that it is possible that it happened. Why are you mistaking the start of an argument for its conclusion ?

- No! It's not your fault that my dragon claim is nonfalsifiable... you are 100% justified in not believing me. Aren't you?
Can you offer any evidence at all ? You are mistaken in thinking your dragon claim is equivalent to my claim of resurrection.

- Please, let's not be hypocritical here. Until you answer my claim about going to Mars, we're BOTH IN THE SAME BOAT. We're both skeptics... you about my claim, and me about yours.

I already said, what evidence can you produce. Something as mundane and everyday a a martian rock would suffice (or a coaster from a martian casino).

- My claim happens to be falsifiable, yours (the resurrection) does not. Likewise, my dragon on my shoulder is nonfalsifiable.
As noted the resurrection claim is exactly as falsifiable as your claim to have gone to mars. In both cases we are dealing with historical events that produce knock on events and leave trace evidence. At the end of the day all that can be offered is "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusions in both cases. But that is good enough for a court of law to execute people and imprison them for life, why is it insufficent here ?

Your argument is tanamount to me doing to following.

AA: I went to amars yesterday

J: Got any evidence at all

AA : Yet here is a rock from mars, go have it tested

(J goes offer and discovers that it is a mars rock!)

AA : See I told you I went to mars !

J : No you didn't, you stole the rock from [insert whereever they are stashed] and that is where you got it from

AA : No I didn't. I went to mars. Go and check to see if any are missing

( J goes and checks and discovers all are accounted for)

AA : See. How else would I have gotten the martian rock

J: You stole it from a secret government stash of mars rocks from a series of secret government flights to mars, disguised at satelite launches, for unknown and obviously evil purposes !

AA : What ?!?!?! Do you have any evidence of this alternative explanation of how I got a mars rock ?

J: Yep. Your holding it aren't you !

AA : Get off the crack !

J : But my argument is perfectly reasonable, you have no evidnece at all that you went to mars.

AA: Ok what if I showed you ground telemetry recorded by NASA

J: Nope no good. You just faked all of that ground telemetry because of your connections to a secret governement organisation of "Black Op's" known as "The Company", who exist for the purposes of combatting vampire encursions.

AA : What !?!!?!? Do you have any evidence such groups exist !

J: Yep. your faked telemetry. Who else could possibly have the resources to fake such telemetry successfully and deceive so many people.

AA : Are you sure you have taken your meds today ?

J : I am perfectly sane and my explanation is reasonable. If you really went to mars yesterday then you should be able to produce the space ship you went in.

AA: I can. The shuttle that landed from the ISS yesterday is the last stage of my mars ship. And besides where have a I been for the last three months

J: You call that evidence ! Everybody knows a shuttle just goes into orbit.

AA : I said it was the last stage. The rest was discarded on the trip. I cannot produce what I cannot possibly have.

J: Oh how convenient. You can't produce the space ship but I just have to take your word for it based on telemetry and martian rocks which are easily accounted for as I already noted by secret government organisations. You really don't have any evidence at all that you went to mars and you just expect me to take your whole claim on nothing more than blind faith

AA : What the hell are you talking about !

J: All you have produced as supposed evidence is things that you could easily have faked and so are suspect. I don't need to take your mars claims seriously because you have no evidence that does not have a more reasonable explanation.

AA : Sheesh ... Your nuts ...

What are you doing differently in regards to the resurrection. you would dismiss any evidence out of hand and claim there is none. But if you could produce martian rocks and ground telemetry then it would be reasonable for me to give weight to your claim that you have just returned from mars. Yet apparently you think it would be unreasonable to conclude such a thing based on my own presuppositions about the likley hood of secret government organisations and vampires.

Lets hope you never sit in on any murder trials that involve silly circumstantial evidence like DNA and murder weapons with finger prints, and even eye witness tesitmony. you'd only be convinced if you saw the murder take place right ?

Shall I blame YOU for not telling me what kind of evidence I can show you for my dragon?
No. But it is my fault for not giving your claim any credence if you can actually produce some evidence for your dragon that does not have other simpler less convoluted explanations.

Jason

jason

April 1st 2003, 06:59 PM

I have no idea what would be suitable evidence of a violation of natural law.
Who said it was a violation of natural law ? Is it a violation of natural law everytime you catch a ball and prevent it falling to the ground.

Obviously no serious historian considers the 30-odd gospels and other early Christian writings evidence of anything other than their writers' beliefs.
Specifically who ? Or does the requirement of being a "serious historian" require that you reject such things ?

LOL. Jason -- are you the Poster Formerly Known as Svensky? -- we don't need to erect some criteria that you have to satisfy.
See my answer to AtheistArchon above. And yes I am.

You're the one with the claim "Jesus was Resurrected from the Dead." So bring on the evidence. If it is the early christian writings; forget it. Lots of ancient writers attest to miracles, and not a single one is taken seriously by historians.
Really ? Which ancient writings are you refering to that are of the same genre as the gospels that attest to miracles in the same way ?

Jason

AtheistArchon

April 1st 2003, 10:02 PM

But this is a false analogy. I am not telling you in regards the resurrection that I have no evidence or that the evidence only consists of the words of the bible.

There are other lines of evidence including all of the events we see surrounding the resurrection event.

To insist that I am defending the resurrection in the same way you are defending your dragon hypothesis is insulting to say the least.

- Why is it insulting? The resurrection is a nonfalsifiable claim... nobody can ever falsify it. The same goes for the dragon. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to give you an idea of why we should use ECREE.

What evidence can you produce that you went ? You might have. You have offered nothing in defence of the idea that you went to mars yesterday. I am open to the possibility (however unlikely) that you did provided you have any evidence at all.

But again, this is a false analogy, because I am not asking you to simply take my word or even just the word of the disciples, for the resurrection.

- You are asking me to take your word for it in lieu of extraordinary evidence. I'm fully aware that there are all sorts of arguments for the resurrection, but I'm aware of none that describe how the laws of physics were broken, and that could show me an example.

- You say that I would have to show you evidence of my Mars trip... would phots do? Some eye witnesses? No. You would have to have some heavy duty evidence in order to be convinced, and even then you might not believe me.

But again, this is a false analogy, because I am not asking you to simply take my word or even just the word of the disciples, for the resurrection.

- Do you have the kind of evidence that it would take to convince you I went to Mars?

- The analogy doesn't depend upon how much evidence I'm offering you in my make-believe claim, the analogy describes a claim that I know you don't believe (and you know I don't believe in the resurrection), and I'm trying to put you in my shoes. The resurrection is extraordinary! So is my claim that I flew to Mars. What would convince you? That's the level of evidence I'd need to be convinced of the resurrection.

you could simply produce a rock from mars. That is not extraordinary at all, but barring any going missing from stocks we have on earth (if we do, I can't remember) then that would not be extraordinary evidence at all. It would be quite mundane, but it would offer evidence that you have been where you claim.

- Would that really convince you? We have Mars rocks here on Earth, you know.

The resurrection account is falsifiable.

- How? How could anyone show it is false? It was "a miracle".

So you can easily falsify my claim that the resurrection did not happen by producing a more plausible account of the events in question.

- Ehh, you may want to restate that.

But if you have to invoke something akin to "time travelling insurance salesmans led by a clone of elvis, who faked the resurrection and the rise of christianity to get the 'Act of God' clause into insurance law" then why should I listen to your alternative.

But you can offer an alternative and we can compare the plausibility of the alternatives to see what happened. This is SOP for a court of law. Or don't law courts work at all ?

- Well, the US legal system actually does not adhere to nearly the standard of evidence that science adheres to. Personal testimony (mostly first-hand eye witnesses) is typical in courtrooms. However, this isn't about me coming up with "alternatives" to the resurrection story; I am not the one making a claim here.

You don't have to. I said if. If God does exist then the event in question would be no problem for him at all.

- Okay, but we could say "what if" all day and never come to a conclusion. What if I had a spaceship?

Yes exactly. But I am not claiming that the mere possibility of a resurrection means one happened, I am saying that it is possible that it happened. Why are you mistaking the start of an argument for its conclusion ?

- Wha?

- So... you don't believe the resurrection actually happened?

Can you offer any evidence at all ? You are mistaken in thinking your dragon claim is equivalent to my claim of resurrection.

- No, I can't offer any evidence of the dragon... and you can't offer any evidence of the resurrection. Empirical evidence, that is. We could BOTH go to eyewitnesses (and mine would be fresher than yours), historical texts (dragons are all over the place in ancient texts), and that sort of thing. That's not good enough... we both want something solid.

I already said, what evidence can you produce. Something as mundane and everyday a a martian rock would suffice (or a coaster from a martian casino).

- Then you're gullible. I suspect you're being obtuse on purpose... not too many people would believe I travelled to Mars if I showed them a coaster.

As noted the resurrection claim is exactly as falsifiable as your claim to have gone to mars. In both cases we are dealing with historical events that produce knock on events and leave trace evidence. At the end of the day all that can be offered is "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusions in both cases. But that is good enough for a court of law to execute people and imprison them for life, why is it insufficent here ?

- Because the legal system uses a lesser standard of evidence than science does. I'm sorry, but it does.

What are you doing differently in regards to the resurrection. you would dismiss any evidence out of hand and claim there is none.

- If you had any empirical evidence, why wouldn't you show it to me?

But if you could produce martian rocks and ground telemetry then it would be reasonable for me to give weight to your claim that you have just returned from mars. Yet apparently you think it would be unreasonable to conclude such a thing based on my own presuppositions about the likley hood of secret government organisations and vampires.

- Wha???

- You're wierd.

Lets hope you never sit in on any murder trials that involve silly circumstantial evidence like DNA

- DNA evidence is not circumstantial!!

and murder weapons with finger prints

- Neither are fingerprints!

and even eye witness tesitmony. you'd only be convinced if you saw the murder take place right ?

- Personal testimony, in science, is circumstantial. But understand that I'm not asking for pure empiricism here... empirical evidence will suffice.

No. But it is my fault for not giving your claim any credence if you can actually produce some evidence for your dragon that does not have other simpler less convoluted explanations.

- Look... if you have empirical evidence of the resurrection, you shouldn't be holding back. You'd be the first person to offer such a thing, but I suppose anything is possible.

- Additionally, I know you're not as gullible as to believe I went to Mars by showing you a souvenir. The point of ECREE is well documented in this thread... feigning gullibility just to try to lower the standard of evidence is just being coy.

jason

April 1st 2003, 10:39 PM

- Why is it insulting? The resurrection is a nonfalsifiable claim... nobody can ever falsify it. The same goes for the dragon. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to give you an idea of why we should use ECREE.
It is insulting that you equate the too. You can offer no evidence at all for the existence of your dragon, but there are lines of historical evidence that are looked at the draw the conclusion in favour of the resurrection.

- You are asking me to take your word for it in lieu of extraordinary evidence. I'm fully aware that there are all sorts of arguments for the resurrection, but I'm aware of none that describe how the laws of physics were broken, and that could show me an example.
Why do you assume any physical laws where violated ?

Do you violate the laws of physics when you catch a ball ? You prevent it falling to the ground and thus stop it behaving in a way consistent with the lack of an intelligent agent, but are you really violating physical law ?

Nobody is claiming that the resurrection did not require intervention from God to effect it, but that is not the same as a violation of something you seem to be calling "natural law".

- You say that I would have to show you evidence of my Mars trip... would phots do? Some eye witnesses? No. You would have to have some heavy duty evidence in order to be convinced, and even then you might not believe me.
A martian rock that is not one stolen from earth and ground telemetry would do. That is heavy duty evidence although it is simple and mundane evidence that can reasonably be expected to exist.

- Do you have the kind of evidence that it would take to convince you I went to Mars?
I said in my last post. Ground telemetry and Mars rocks that cannot be accounted for otherwise.

- The analogy doesn't depend upon how much evidence I'm offering you in my make-believe claim, the analogy describes a claim that I know you don't believe (and you know I don't believe in the resurrection), and I'm trying to put you in my shoes. The resurrection is extraordinary! So is my claim that I flew to Mars. What would convince you? That's the level of evidence I'd need to be convinced of the resurrection.
Your right I don't believe you. But what have you offered as evidence ?

- Would that really convince you? We have Mars rocks here on Earth, you know.
I know we do, but if you produced one that could not be accounted for from that stash, should I then look to secret governments stashes of mars rocks ? Is that really the most likely explanation ?

- How? How could anyone show it is false? It was "a miracle".
Explain why we see what we see from history in a way that is simpler and more likely. It is trivial.

All criminal law works with 1 time events (a crime) and the "historical ripples" of those events, in the forms of eye witness testimony and evidence.

Then people decide what is the most likely cause of the "ripples" we see. The criteria is beyond resonable doubt and that is the one applicable to the resurrection.

- Ehh, you may want to restate that.
Why you claim the resurrection did not happen. Something did. What do you think happened ? Sticking your head in the sand or saying, "But miracles are impossible" doesn't answer the question. Something happened 2000 years ago in palestine. What ?

But it is important here. The right standard of evidence to apply is a legal-historical one not a scientific one and to want to apply a scientific criteria is nothing more than a category mistake.

If you are going to claim that the event didn't happen thats fine. But it is reasonable of me to ask what you think happened instead.

[quote]- Okay, but we could say "what if" all day and never come to a conclusion. What if I had a spaceship?
Then that would be evidence. But the fact that you cannot produce one is not the same as saying your claim is false. I suppose you think the whole moon landings where faked because nasa cannot produce the complete rocket ?

- No, I can't offer any evidence of the dragon... and you can't offer any evidence of the resurrection. Empirical evidence, that is. We could BOTH go to eyewitnesses (and mine would be fresher than yours), historical texts (dragons are all over the place in ancient texts), and that sort of thing. That's not good enough... we both want something solid.
the claims are not the same. You are claiming there is a dragon on your shoulder right now.

Are you really saying that all history should be tossed aside and all criminal law rendered invalid because it works in "reasonable doubt" and "most likely explanation".

Heck how do you cross roads ? You cannot be 100% certian of reaching the other side. Yet you bet your life on the proposition that you will.

- Then you're gullible. I suspect you're being obtuse on purpose... not too many people would believe I travelled to Mars if I showed them a coaster.
A martian casino coaster was a joke.

I know, but that is not a problem. Do you really think that criminals should not be tried because the standard of evidence isn't "scientific" ?

[quote]- If you had any empirical evidence, why wouldn't you show it to me?
What do you want ? All of the evidence for the resurrection is legal-historic in nature. But that is more than good enough.

You do not demand that murders crimes be analyseable in a test tube for them to be convicted of the crime.

- You're wierd.
No it is simply that, given the evidence offered it is more reasonable to conclude that you actually went to mars then it is to conclude that you are part of an elaborate and unevidenced government conspiracy. Going to mars was your example not mine.

- DNA evidence is not circumstantial!!
True. But would you accept a defendants story that an elaborate government conspiracy was afoot to frame them rather than the far more likely story, that they where in fact present ?

Both accounts are equally valid using your dragon analogy. Should the criminal therefore be let loose ?

- Neither are fingerprints!
Government conspiracy run by little gray men using weird alien ultra-science put them there not my hand. Which is more likely and realisitic given the two choices ?

But you cannot falsify my alternative.

- Personal testimony, in science, is circumstantial. But understand that I'm not asking for pure empiricism here... empirical evidence will suffice.
What does this mean ? I think you are making a catergory error here demanding this sort of evidence.

It is a historical event and historical standards of evidence and reliability are the correct ones to apply. The standard is "reasonable doubt".

- Look... if you have empirical evidence of the resurrection, you shouldn't be holding back. You'd be the first person to offer such a thing, but I suppose anything is possible.
What are you calling "empirical evidence" ?

- Additionally, I know you're not as gullible as to believe I went to Mars by showing you a souvenir. The point of ECREE is well documented in this thread... feigning gullibility just to try to lower the standard of evidence is just being coy.
I'm not trying to lower the standard of evidence. I am trying to get you to see that the standard of evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt". That is the only level of evidence that can be demanded and to demand otherwise indicates one of two things.

1. You don't realise your demand is unrealistic and unreasonable.

2. You do know your demand is unrealisitic, but it does provide you a conveninent excuse.

Which is it ?

You cannot have 100% certianty in this case, just as you cannot have 100% certianty is nearly all things you do. (maybe all). So why do you demand it ?

Jason

AtheistArchon

April 1st 2003, 11:24 PM

It is insulting that you equate the too. You can offer no evidence at all for the existence of your dragon, but there are lines of historical evidence that are looked at the draw the conclusion in favour of the resurrection.

- But historical evidence isn't good enough. There's historical evidence of Zeus and Apollo, too.

Why do you assume any physical laws where violated ?

Do you violate the laws of physics when you catch a ball ? You prevent it falling to the ground and thus stop it behaving in a way consistent with the lack of an intelligent agent, but are you really violating physical law ?

Nobody is claiming that the resurrection did not require intervention from God to effect it, but that is not the same as a violation of something you seem to be calling "natural law".

- See my new thread on ball catching. :smile: Suffice it to say that godly intervention doesn't seem to be falsifiable.

A martian rock that is not one stolen from earth and ground telemetry would do. That is heavy duty evidence although it is simple and mundane evidence that can reasonably be expected to exist.

- *sigh* Okay. But a spaceship should also be expected to exist. You wouldn't want to take a ride?

Explain why we see what we see from history in a way that is simpler and more likely.

- I can do that: it is a religious myth passed along through the generations. That's a pretty simple exaplanation.

Why you claim the resurrection did not happen. Something did.

- "Something" happened? From my point of view, history shows us a trail of people who believed it happened... not that it did happen.

But it is important here. The right standard of evidence to apply is a legal-historical one not a scientific one

- I disagree. The event, if it did happen, would dash our current understanding of science away completely. I'm not sticking my head in the sand when I say that people do not come back to life after being dead three days, I'm stating a fact as we observe it.

Then that would be evidence. But the fact that you cannot produce one is not the same as saying your claim is false.

- But there is no spaceship. Likewise, you can't show me a resurrection. So, neither of us believe each other.

Are you really saying that all history should be tossed aside and all criminal law rendered invalid because it works in "reasonable doubt" and "most likely explanation".

- Consider what you're saying. Is it more likely that someone came back to life after being dead three days, or that it's a story perpetuated throughout history? Remember, I don't have a spaceship, and you can't show that any gods exist.

- It's simpler, and more likely, that I am lying about my Mars trip.

Heck how do you cross roads ? You cannot be 100% certian of reaching the other side. Yet you bet your life on the proposition that you will.

- I don't need 100% certainty. :wink:

A martian casino coaster was a joke.

- Okay, good. :thumb: I was hoping so.

I know, but that is not a problem. Do you really think that criminals should not be tried because the standard of evidence isn't "scientific" ?

- No, I agree that the justice system relies upon personal testimony. However, if there IS scientific evidence in a trial, you can bet they'll use it. Empirical evidence is superior to personal testimony because it does not depend upon one person's faults or honesty.

What do you want ? All of the evidence for the resurrection is legal-historic in nature. But that is more than good enough.

- Again, I disagree. It may be good enough for you, but legal or historic evidence isn't sufficient to me for such an extraordinary claim.

Government conspiracy run by little gray men using weird alien ultra-science put them there not my hand. Which is more likely and realisitic given the two choices ?

- Exactly.

But you cannot falsify my alternative.

- Perhaps more information on falsificationism (a-la Karl Popper) is in order... I will give you some links.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/phil/courses/science/sci6.htm
http://www.markwmoss.com/falsificationism.htm
http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/Popper.html

What are you calling "empirical evidence" ?

- Empirical evidence is evidence that we can experience empirically. An example would be a gun with fingerprints on it, as opposed to the testimony of a person. The person might lie... but the fingerprints cannot.

I'm not trying to lower the standard of evidence. I am trying to get you to see that the standard of evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt".

- But the claim is also beyond reason. We are talking about a person coming back to life after being dead for three days! This is not something that just happens all the time, and what we know about the brain and decomposition tell us that it is physically impossible.

- Now, we could be wrong of course. However, I am not prepared to suspend everything I know about biology via modern medical science. Why should I have to?

You cannot have 100% certianty in this case, just as you cannot have 100% certianty is nearly all things you do. (maybe all). So why do you demand it ?

- Well, I don't. To be 100% certain, I would have to have witnessed the whole thing, but as you rightly point out, that's not empirical evidence, that's pure empiricism (experiencing it yourself). There are ways to convince me, but they involve showing me that such a thing can happen. I further realize that nobody can do this... but that does not make my request unreasonable. Nobody can show you a spaceship capable of going to Mars and back in a day, but that would not make it unreasonable for you to request to see it.

WinAce

April 1st 2003, 11:31 PM

The "evidence" for a resurrection is admissible in court? And here I was under the mistaken impression that witnesses who claim their friends came back to life only damage the prosecutor's case.

jason

April 2nd 2003, 03:19 AM

- But historical evidence isn't good enough. There's historical evidence of Zeus and Apollo, too.
Oh come on now. Please furnish with examples. Are there accounts of Zeus and Apollo coming to earth and wandering around that do not take place in some distant pre-history ?

- *sigh* Okay. But a spaceship should also be expected to exist. You wouldn't want to take a ride?
Sorry to be pedantic, but it is entirely possible however unlikely that you could have been to mars and back. I would be right to skeptical, but there are things you could produce (short of a ride in the space ship) that would be (IMO) convincing evidence.

I can do that: it is a religious myth passed along through the generations. That's a pretty simple exaplanation.
But does it hold up under scrutiny ? It is easy to toss out such a one line explanation, but are you prepared to defend the idea against a more careful analysis ? I've looked at lots of resurrection alternatives over the years and most are like the one you just offered. But the person offering it doesn't want to defend the idea against criticism.

"Something" happened? From my point of view, history shows us a trail of people who believed it happened... not that it did happen.
Maybe not a resurrection, but something definitely did happen 2000 years ago. Even if that turned out to be, "The disciples made it up !", or "The disciples got some bad weed", it is still an event of some sort.

But what event (or series of events) would produce the effects we see ?

- I disagree. The event, if it did happen, would dash our current understanding of science away completely.
Hardly. Except to qualify natural law with the words "All things being equal", and of course to remove from science a rabid anti-supernaturalism. The philisophical fall out would be much worse than the scientific fall out. In fact I doubt any real science would be affected at all.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand when I say that people do not come back to life after being dead three days, I'm stating a fact as we observe it.
In the normal course of events I agree that that is the case. But this is not a normal course of events.

But there is no spaceship. Likewise, you can't show me a resurrection. So, neither of us believe each other.
But I am not in principle opposed to the possibility of one existing. I think we differ there.

- Consider what you're saying. Is it more likely that someone came back to life after being dead three days, or that it's a story perpetuated throughout history? Remember, I don't have a spaceship, and you can't show that any gods exist.
This is exactly the question. I don't believe the resurrection happened from some sort of blind faith (however comfortable such an assumption may make you feel) I am convinced it is the only viable alternative of the ones available. I have not found any purely naturalistic alternative that doens't rely heavily on all sorts of massively improbable assumptions about people that would be miracles in there own right.

- It's simpler, and more likely, that I am lying about my Mars trip.
Yes in this case. But that may not be so for the resurrection.

- No, I agree that the justice system relies upon personal testimony. However, if there IS scientific evidence in a trial, you can bet they'll use it. Empirical evidence is superior to personal testimony because it does not depend upon one person's faults or honesty.
Which is why multiple witnesses are used and the testimony of one witness is regarded as suspect. But this does not mean that personal testimony is not extremely useful and extremely valuable.

- Again, I disagree. It may be good enough for you, but legal or historic evidence isn't sufficient to me for such an extraordinary claim.
Why not ? If no other plausible explanations exist then why is it insufficent ?

- Exactly.
But empirically government conspiracies and use of my hand to make fingers prints are equally difficult to falsify. You reject the government conspiracy angle because the alternative meets a criteria of "simpler explanation" (occams razor and all that) but that is not a scientific or empirical analysis you have just done.

- Perhaps more information on falsificationism (a-la Karl Popper) is in order... I will give you some links.
I know what falsifiability is. I don't see why, within the bounds of legal-historic rules of evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt criteria, you can claim the resurrection is "unfalsifiable".

- Empirical evidence is evidence that we can experience empirically. An example would be a gun with fingerprints on it, as opposed to the testimony of a person. The person might lie... but the fingerprints cannot.
But a government conspiracy could plant the fingers prints using alien ultra-tech. How could any empirical experiement rule this possibility out ?

- But the claim is also beyond reason. We are talking about a person coming back to life after being dead for three days! This is not something that just happens all the time, and what we know about the brain and decomposition tell us that it is physically impossible.
Are we back to this again. I am not disputing that such things are outside of our normal experience. But as I said, if God exists such things are childs play.

So when you look at the evidence it is reasonable to allow the possibility that the event happened as described. You want to rule it impossible from the start, but that is your presuppositions at work not the evidence.

- Now, we could be wrong of course. However, I am not prepared to suspend everything I know about biology via modern medical science. Why should I have to?
Hang on. I'm not asking you to ignore the fact that such an event can never happen via purely natural means. I agree. The question is, does the evidence suggest that such an event may have happened. It begs the question to rule the possiblity out before you start and then claim that is must not have happened. You can do that if you like, but don't present a presupposition dressed up as an argument as evidence against the possibility of a resurrection.

There are ways to convince me, but they involve showing me that such a thing can happen. I further realize that nobody can do this... but that does not make my request unreasonable.
Yes it does. I'm not asking you to start with the assumption that the resurrection is the most likely candidate, i am asking you to allow it on to the playing field as a possible explanation, however unlikely you personally think it is. That is what makes the request unreasonable. If you elimate all of the obvious possibilities you consider the less obvious ones, not throw your hands in the air and give up.

Nobody can show you a spaceship capable of going to Mars and back in a day, but that would not make it unreasonable for you to request to see it.
That isn't quite what your asking though.

BTW emprical evidence of the resurrection of the type you demand may exist in the shroud of turin.

Also, just as side note, if a person reports a story to you, with details , where they can be checked, that are accurate, does that not give weight to the testimony that you cannot check ? For this is exactly what we find in luke. Also they think they have found a peice of the head board of the cross of Christ. Which adds credability to the story. And so on.

Jason

Sheepdog

April 2nd 2003, 01:04 PM

just a couple of comments, due to lack of time...

AtheistArchon:

- Pascal's Wager motivates skeptics to research? How so?

well, aparently most aren't motivated. more properly, it should motivate. the reasoning is this, if you are right either of us make minimal gains or losses (i'd say the Christian does benefit if he lived a Christian life, but i may be biased :smile: ). if any one of the major theisms that teach a form of hell is right, you are at risk of losing much.

i dunno. if i were a skeptic, the risk alone would have me concerned enough to investigate some of the claims out there. if you are right, don't you want to be certain you are right? at least to a slightly greater degree than now? i certainly would.

- Whoaaa, wait... you reject my claim because... why again? Because you don't care if it's true or not? Or because I don't have any evidence to back it up? (ECREE?)

if you don't have any evidence at all, i don't have to evoke ECREE; lack of "ordinary" evidence is sufficient to reject the claim.

sandlewood

April 2nd 2003, 03:02 PM

Pascal’s Wager doesn’t motivate people to research because it is a flawed argument.

AtheistArchon

April 2nd 2003, 04:30 PM

Oh come on now. Please furnish with examples. Are there accounts of Zeus and Apollo coming to earth and wandering around that do not take place in some distant pre-history ?

- What is pre-history? And what makes 2000 year old religious texts more reliable than 4000 year old religious texts?

But does it hold up under scrutiny ? It is easy to toss out such a one line explanation, but are you prepared to defend the idea against a more careful analysis ? I've looked at lots of resurrection alternatives over the years and most are like the one you just offered. But the person offering it doesn't want to defend the idea against criticism.

- As I've already said, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic. It's on the person making the claim, and that's you in this case. Asking me for a "simpler alternative" and then attacking it kind of goes against your notion of "what is the simpler explanation?", doesn't it?

- I'm not going to argue with you about resurrection details anymore in this thread. If you want to talk about the resurrection, let's start a new one. We are going in circles here, and getting off topic.

Hardly. Except to qualify natural law with the words "All things being equal", and of course to remove from science a rabid anti-supernaturalism.

- You don't understand the philosophy behind science. See my thread to Socreates in the science forum: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2650

- Long story short: science does not allow supernatural explanations of any kind, ever. That's just science. If you're going to investigate the supernatural, you're going to need to use a different method, and if you can come up with one that's reliable, demonstrate it to me and I'll take a look.

In the normal course of events I agree that that is the case. But this is not a normal course of events.

- Correct! It's extraordinary. Thus, why should we use ordinary evidences?

But I am not in principle opposed to the possibility of one existing. I think we differ there.

- I've repeatedly said that anything is possible. I've also said that ECREE is not about the absolute truth of a claim, just it's believability. Neither of us believe each other.

Yes in this case. But that may not be so for the resurrection.

- No, you are wrong. It is simpler that the resurrection is one of a series of known and documented religious myths than to say that an invisible, omnipotent, immaterial, unexplainable being meddled with the laws of physics in a way we can never measure, via a method we can never reproduce or understand, in order to reanimate the brain and body of a man who had been decomposing for three days, 2000 years ago. Just look at all those qualifiers... are you really prepared to defend all of them?

Which is why multiple witnesses are used

- 25th-hand personal testimony of supposed people who existed millenia ago is not extraordinary evidence. It wouldn't even hold up in court, much less in a scientific investigation! Stop trying to be Matlock, and focus on the issue.

Why not ? If no other plausible explanations exist then why is it insufficent ?

- *sigh* It's a religious myth. That explanation is not implausible... unless of course you can show the existence of god, how he does miracles, and so on and so forth.

But empirically government conspiracies and use of my hand to make fingers prints are equally difficult to falsify.

- Which is why they aren't admissible. Nonfalsifiable hypotheses are meaningless!

I know what falsifiability is. I don't see why, within the bounds of legal-historic rules of evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt criteria, you can claim the resurrection is "unfalsifiable".

- Once again: You tell me how it can be falsified. What could possibly be done to prove that the resurrection did not happen?

- Tell me how!

- After you're done, tell me how you can falsify the invisible, immaterial dragon on my shoulder. Just use the same method yo used to falsify the resurrection. No making up government conspiracies! Tell me how we can scientifically show the resurrection to be false.

Are we back to this again. I am not disputing that such things are outside of our normal experience. But as I said, if God exists such things are childs play.

- Round and round we go. Do you not read anything I post?

- "If god exists"... sure, whatever. IF I had a spaceship. Show me god exists, and THEN the resurrection is more plausible.

Hang on. I'm not asking you to ignore the fact that such an event can never happen via purely natural means. I agree. The question is, does the evidence suggest that such an event may have happened. It begs the question to rule the possiblity out before you start and then claim that is must not have happened. You can do that if you like, but don't present a presupposition dressed up as an argument as evidence against the possibility of a resurrection.

- I'm sorry, but if you can prove your claim, you should do so. Until then, I don't believe you; you cannot ask me to believe it before you prove it.

Yes it does. I'm not asking you to start with the assumption that the resurrection is the most likely candidate,

- IT ISN'T. IT VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS... that's "unlikely"! It's a religious myth! One of thousands.

i am asking you to allow it on to the playing field as a possible explanation, however unlikely you personally think it is. That is what makes the request unreasonable. If you elimate all of the obvious possibilities you consider the less obvious ones, not throw your hands in the air and give up.

- So now it's impossible that it's a religious myth. :duh:

BTW emprical evidence of the resurrection of the type you demand may exist in the shroud of turin.

- According to science, a fraud:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html

Also, just as side note, if a person reports a story to you, with details , where they can be checked, that are accurate, does that not give weight to the testimony that you cannot check ? For this is exactly what we find in luke.

- It depends on the claim. I'm very sure some of them are mundane, and could be verified. However, given the source, I am not convinced that "Luke" existed, or that if he did, his writings are preserved after so many centuries of religious politics and translation.

Also they think they have found a peice of the head board of the cross of Christ. Which adds credability to the story.

- I hear they found some pieces of a UFO out a Roswell, too.

AtheistArchon

April 2nd 2003, 04:47 PM

if you don't have any evidence at all, i don't have to evoke ECREE; lack of "ordinary" evidence is sufficient to reject the claim.

- Well yes, of course that's true also. :smile: But I would tend to call that a subcategory of ECREE:

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without it, the claim is justifiably unbelieveable.
2. ANY claim with NO evidence, extraordinary or not, is justifiably unbelieveable.

- As for Pascal's Wager, I believe it is flawed. Although, it's true that I've done research in order to invalidate the PW argument, so in that sense you may be right! :smile:

Sheepdog

April 2nd 2003, 05:54 PM

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51152#post51152)
sandlewood:

Pascal’s Wager doesn’t motivate people to research because it is a flawed argument.

it's flawed? how so?

please don't say that is doesn't prove God, because i already know that. it isn't a proof-- except that many (most?) skeptics are too complacent.

AtheistArchon

April 2nd 2003, 08:53 PM

it's flawed? how so?

please don't say that is doesn't prove God, because i already know that. it isn't a proof-- except that many (most?) skeptics are too complacent.

- Right, it's not designed to be a proof of god. However, I also think it's flawed in what it does try to say.

- Technically speaking, the argument goes like this.

1. One does not know whether God exists.

2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.

3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.

4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

- Is this a good argument? Let’s examine the logic and the premises to see if we have any problems.

- Let’s look at premise 1: One does not know whether God exists. We’ll have to call this a presupposition, and in this case it’s a warranted one, for if it were not true then the argument does not apply at all. Let’s presume premise 1 to be true.

- Premise 2 isn’t as easy to define. Is premise 2 supposed to flow logically from premise 1? It doesn’t. We can’t infer that premise 2 is true just because we acknowledge premise 1 as true. Is premise 2 another assumption? Yes, it must be… however it’s not just an assumption, it’s an assumption that the god in question is the Christian God. There are other, more liberal definitions of god that specifically deny this premise as being true. Thus we must restrict the conclusion now to Christians only, and now it goes like this: “If you are a Christian, then it is in your best interest to believe in God.” We can see now that this statement contains a logical problem, since if you’re a Christian then you already believe in god, and further have presupposed that the god you believe in is one that would punish you for not believing in Him. It becomes a tautology, a repetition of the same meaning in different words… a tiny vicious circle. We also know that given premise 1, we don’t know if any gods exist at all… least of all the Christian god. We also certainly can’t presume that the Christian god is the only god we have to work with; that would be denying premise 1.

sandlewood

April 2nd 2003, 09:15 PM

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51263#post51263)
Sheepdog:
it's flawed? how so?

please don't say that is doesn't prove God, because i already know that. it isn't a proof-- except that many (most?) skeptics are too complacent.

1. At first glance, this might seem to be a choice between two alternatives, Christianity and atheism. But there are many religions. By choosing Christianity, you may end up in some other religion’s hell. It becomes just a game accepting the religion with the worst hell to cover you bases.

2. Anyone who wanted you to believe their religion would simply dream up the worst possible hell. Then, by Pascal’s Wager, you would be obligated to believe in that religion. It doesn’t have to be limited to religions either. Any threat or promise would work. I can sell you 10 acres of land in Manhattan for $100. Yes, I might be lying. But can you take that chance? If you’re wrong you will lose the opportunity of a lifetime. If I lower the price to $50 does that change the situation?

3. If you believe God exists solely because it sounds like a good bet, then won’t God be aware of that? Won’t he be angry at people who believe for that reason?

4. It's not true that if God doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing by believing. Many people value the truth and intellectual integrity very highly. They prefer to believe what is the truth and not believe something just because it seems like a better bet. And if you, as a theist, are wrong, you have wasted a lifetime’s worth of worshipping and donating money to church.

5. The argument is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely. But that not necessarily the case. Based on evidence, the likelihood of a god existing is very low. That changes the odds in the bet.

jason

April 3rd 2003, 10:13 AM

- What is pre-history? And what makes 2000 year old religious texts more reliable than 4000 year old religious texts?
There is a big difference. The roman and greek mythology is set (to borrow from starwars) "long long ago in a land far far away".

Nobody understood the roman mythology as having occured down the road in palestine a real number of years ago.

- As I've already said, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic. It's on the person making the claim, and that's you in this case. Asking me for a "simpler alternative" and then attacking it kind of goes against your notion of "what is the simpler explanation?", doesn't it?
Not at all. I've offered an outline of the case. 2000 years ago something happened in palestine surround the historical figure of Jesus Christ. I would contend that the only explanation that works involves a real life resurrection.

I think it is fair to ask what you think actually happened. Anytime I have asked a skeptic I get a lot of ducking and weaving but very few are willing to even try.

- I'm not going to argue with you about resurrection details anymore in this thread. If you want to talk about the resurrection, let's start a new one. We are going in circles here, and getting off topic.
Actually I think it is on topic. You claim "extraordinary" evidence is required. But as noted with the mars trip, quite mundane evidence will suffice. Also you have been rather sketchy about what counts as extraordinary. You said something about empirical evidence, but this smacked greatly of, setting the bar at an unreachable level.

- You don't understand the philosophy behind science.
Actually I probably understand it better than you think. I'm just trying to get you to see that you are commiting a category mistake by dragging in rules of evidence like this.

- Long story short: science does not allow supernatural explanations of any kind, ever. That's just science. If you're going to investigate the supernatural, you're going to need to use a different method, and if you can come up with one that's reliable, demonstrate it to me and I'll take a look.
I already did. It is a the legal-historic method used everyday in courts of law. As for science not allowing the supernatural. Well duh. It rules it out apriori. But all that means is that science is simply blind to the possibility not that it demonstrates anything about the possibility of the supernatural.

- Correct! It's extraordinary. Thus, why should we use ordinary evidences?
Because they will suffice.

- I've repeatedly said that anything is possible. I've also said that ECREE is not about the absolute truth of a claim, just it's believability. Neither of us believe each other.
You offer nothing at all that suggests I should.

- No, you are wrong. It is simpler that the resurrection is one of a series of known and documented religious myths than to say that an invisible, omnipotent, immaterial, unexplainable being meddled with the laws of physics in a way we can never measure, via a method we can never reproduce or understand, in order to reanimate the brain and body of a man who had been decomposing for three days, 2000 years ago. Just look at all those qualifiers... are you really prepared to defend all of them?

Yes, but you wont defend yours will you. How did it get started and why would the disciples have bought into the idea? Where did the body go ? etc etc etc. Your explanation only looks in anyway simpler becasue you aren't bothering to think about it.

- 25th-hand personal testimony of supposed people who existed millenia ago is not extraordinary evidence.
If you think the gospels are this then you simply don't know what you are talking about.

It wouldn't even hold up in court, much less in a scientific investigation! Stop trying to be Matlock, and focus on the issue.

A scientific investigation can't even hope to ask the right questions let alone answer them. Science is not a particualy good methodology for investigating just about everything. It does a couple of things well, but that is all.

- *sigh* It's a religious myth. That explanation is not implausible...
So defend the idea then. You cannot, yet you keep trotting this out.

- Which is why they aren't admissible. Nonfalsifiable hypotheses are meaningless!
Yet I bet you are an evolutionist. And besides the resurrection hypothesis is falsifiable. That you refuse to defend your alternative or even try to flesh it out speaks more about your inability to do so. But sticking your head in the sand and repeating the same one line over and over is not an argument.

Once again: You tell me how it can be falsified. What could possibly be done to prove that the resurrection did not happen?
Offer a simpler explanation that explains all of the surrounding historical events in a way that is not completely ad hoc and contrieved. It is simple if it is as false as you claim it is. It should be childs play.

After you're done, tell me how you can falsify the invisible, immaterial dragon on my shoulder. Just use the same method yo used to falsify the resurrection. No making up government conspiracies! Tell me how we can scientifically show the resurrection to be false.
You cannot show the resurrection to be scientifically false. You are (yet again) commiting a CATEGORY ERROR.

Yes everything. That you don't appear to know what a catergory error is, seems to be the principle problem.

[quote]- "If god exists"... sure, whatever. IF I had a spaceship. Show me god exists, and THEN the resurrection is more plausible.
That it is possible God exists allows the explanation onto the table.

- I'm sorry, but if you can prove your claim, you should do so. Until then, I don't believe you; you cannot ask me to believe it before you prove it.
Until you figure out what a catergory error is, what is the point in trying ?

- IT ISN'T. IT VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS... that's "unlikely"! It's a religious myth! One of thousands.
It doens't. Prove that it does. You keep saying that any sort of miracles violates the "laws of physics" yet you are utterly incapable of showing why exactly. Do you have a perfect understanding of physics ? Do you know something that even leading physcists don't ?

And if it is a religious myth as you endlessly claim then is should be the work of a 5 year old for you to explain exactly how it arose despite the obstacles surrounding its acceptance into the culture. I'm not going to hold my breath though because you don't seem to know what you are talking about in this case.

- So now it's impossible that it's a religious myth. :duh:

I didn't say that. You simply need to do more than toss confetti in the air like this to make you case.

- According to science, a fraud:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html
csicop is hardly "science".

- It depends on the claim. I'm very sure some of them are mundane, and could be verified. However, given the source, I am not convinced that "Luke" existed, or that if he did, his writings are preserved after so many centuries of religious politics and translation.
Then you are simply ignorant of the history of his account and the success with which the text has been preserved. But again, that you don't know what your talking about is not the same thing as evidence against the position.

I hear they found some pieces of a UFO out a Roswell, too.
Perhaps they did. But I doubt it. A weather balloon is more likely. not that you will be able to figure this out as science cannot answer a question about history and you don't seem to have gotten this yet.

Jason

AtheistArchon

April 3rd 2003, 01:22 PM

There is a big difference. The roman and greek mythology is set (to borrow from starwars) "long long ago in a land far far away".

Nobody understood the roman mythology as having occured down the road in palestine a real number of years ago.

- What?? Are you being serious here? There are descriptions of what were believed to be genuine events in Greek and Roman history which were depicted as (what we today call) mythology. They certainly didn't consider it myth.

- Heck, tribal people worshipping Pele aren't "pre history"... we can document how long ago it was that they did so, and that's mythology, don't you agree?

Not at all. I've offered an outline of the case. 2000 years ago something happened in palestine surround the historical figure of Jesus Christ.

- I'm sorry, but this is an assertion, nothing more.

- Time to stop arguing about the resurrection in this thread... I will make a new one for you, and we can go on about your case in that one.

Actually I think it is on topic. You claim "extraordinary" evidence is required. But as noted with the mars trip, quite mundane evidence will suffice.

- *sigh* Ground telemmetry can be easily faked, Jason. Give me a week, and I can post a graph scan of one here into the forums that shows I went to Mars. I'm really sorry I even brought it up now... you will be as gullible as is convenient just to ensure we can use average evidence as proof of the resurrection.

- I'm not sure I can think of an example too fantastic for you to believe, in comparison. Maybe that's my fault.

You said something about empirical evidence, but this smacked greatly of, setting the bar at an unreachable level.

- Unreachable? If there is empirical evidence, then there's empirical evidence. If not, then there isn't any. What's the problem?

- It's true that lots of people make claims, and don't have any empirical evidence for them. They probably say that asking for it is unreasonable as well.

Actually I probably understand it better than you think. I'm just trying to get you to see that you are commiting a category mistake by dragging in rules of evidence like this.

- Rules of evidence? You'll have to explain what you mean... are you talking about the legal system again?

I already did. It is a the legal-historic method used everyday in courts of law.

- And that's better than science? :ahem: OJ Simpson might agree with you. Personal testimony? Poppycock. I can make up anything I like, get a hundred people to agree with me and testify about it for me. That doesn't make it true.

As for science not allowing the supernatural. Well duh. It rules it out apriori. But all that means is that science is simply blind to the possibility not that it demonstrates anything about the possibility of the supernatural.

- No, it means that if supernatural events were possible, then science would never be able to work because literally any question we ask could be answered by "fairies did it", and we can never prove otherwise.

Because they will suffice.

- Then I've got some prime swamp land in Florida you'll be interested in. Cheap! Trust me.

You offer nothing at all that suggests I should.

- Yes, exactly. Furthermore, anything I offer you that can be easily faked should be immediately ruled out; there are so many con men in the world today, Jason.

Yes, but you wont defend yours will you.

- I don't actually claim that I went to Mars.

How did it get started and why would the disciples have bought into the idea? Where did the body go ? etc etc etc. Your explanation only looks in anyway simpler becasue you aren't bothering to think about it.

- I'll respond to this in the other thread.

If you think the gospels are this then you simply don't know what you are talking about.

- Then enlighten me. Compare the gospels to first hand eyewitness testimony, or empirical evidence.

A scientific investigation can't even hope to ask the right questions let alone answer them. Science is not a particualy good methodology for investigating just about everything. It does a couple of things well, but that is all.

- Incredible! I am dumbfounded.

- Science is the absolute best method we have for approaching the truth about the universe. No other method comes close! Even the legal system is patterned on the scientific method, even if it cannot meet the same standards.

- You tell me what methodology works better than science, and demonstrate it to me. The world will be amazed, I promise you... you'll be an instant billionaire. Remember what the scientific method is: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2650

So defend the idea then. You cannot, yet you keep trotting this out.

- I've justified it several times now, and even you asked me what the simpler explanation is. You just don't like it when you hear it.

- The resurrection is a myth because of its distinct similarity to other mythological stories, because like other mythological stories it has no empirical evidence in its favor, and because people do not come back to life after three days of being dead.

"But if god exists..." Show me god exists.
"But it's not impossible..." It is, given physical laws.
"But historical evidence..." Every myth has historical evidence.
"But this was more recent..." So what?
"But SOMETHING happened..." Says who? The bible?

- Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yet I bet you are an evolutionist.

- And I bet you think evolutionary theory isn't falsifiable. You'd be wrong, of course.

That you refuse to defend your alternative

- I do not need to posit any alternative... YOU need to defend your claim!!

But sticking your head in the sand and repeating the same one line over and over is not an argument.

- Ignoring the fact that nonfalsifiable hypotheses are meaningless isn't a defense, either.

"Once again: You tell me how it can be falsified. What could possibly be done to prove that the resurrection did not happen? ”

Offer a simpler explanation that explains all of the surrounding historical events in a way that is not completely ad hoc and contrieved.

- No! Asking me to offer you an alternative is not showing how your hypothesis can be falsified.

- I'm still waiting! Show me how we could ever prove the resurrection is false, Jason. Don't ask me to defend alternatives, as if by shooting them down you'd automatically have justified your own hypothesis as the only one left possible.

You cannot show the resurrection to be scientifically false. You are (yet again) commiting a CATEGORY ERROR.

- Finally! We agree that the resurrection is nonfalsifiable, just like my dragon.

- Now, explain your category error. I suspect it will have something to do with historical evidence. In which case, simply replace my dragon with Apollo, and presto.

That it is possible God exists allows the explanation onto the table.

- One nonfalsifiable hypothesis at a time, please!

Until you figure out what a catergory error is, what is the point in trying ?

- You have a problem? Explain it. I think I've covered pretty much all the bases already... what category error have we made up to somehow undo the damage done when we allow that the resurrection is nonfalsifiable?

It doens't. Prove that it does. You keep saying that any sort of miracles violates the "laws of physics" yet you are utterly incapable of showing why exactly. Do you have a perfect understanding of physics ? Do you know something that even leading physcists don't ?

- Immaterial beings cannot interact with a physical universe. I've said this many times, and you seem to ignore it.

- I listed several things that would have to happen in order for a body to be resurrected, and these things happen because of physcial laws of the universe... do you deny that these things happen, or not?

And if it is a religious myth as you endlessly claim then is should be the work of a 5 year old for you to explain exactly how it arose despite the obstacles surrounding its acceptance into the culture. I'm not going to hold my breath though because you don't seem to know what you are talking about in this case.

- You want me to tell you how a myth arose? Do you not know how myths arise?

csicop is hardly "science".

- :lol:

- What would convince you? An email from the scientists themselves?

Then you are simply ignorant of the history of his account and the success with which the text has been preserved. But again, that you don't know what your talking about is not the same thing as evidence against the position.

- *double sigh* It's not my job to disprove your claim, it's your job to prove it.

Perhaps they did. But I doubt it. A weather balloon is more likely. not that you will be able to figure this out as science cannot answer a question about history and you don't seem to have gotten this yet.

- You really need to read my thread on the scientific method. No, really. What you've just said indicates that you really, really don't understand what science does or how it works. I'm not trying to patronize you here, I'm being serious.

- Science answers historical questions all the time, Jason.

WinAce

April 3rd 2003, 03:20 PM

Interestingly enough, there are a number of parallels between the Roswell incident and Ressurection. In both cases, for example, conflicting "eyewitness" claims (number of people at the tomb, number of dead aliens, etc.) are excused as "little differences" with the "basic story intact" line.

Faramir

April 3rd 2003, 03:57 PM

Today @ 02:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
WinAce:

Interestingly enough, there are a number of parallels between the Roswell incident and Ressurection. In both cases, for example, conflicting "eyewitness" claims (number of people at the tomb, number of dead aliens, etc.) are excused as "little differences" with the "basic story intact" line.

Of course there are significant difference between the two as well. The primary difference being that the Ressurection accounts were written in a high context ANE culture. These "little differences" are not only explainable, they are to be expected.

The Roswell incident was reported in a low context modern Western culture. In this context, these "little differences" are not as easily explaine, and are in fact damaging to the credibility of the story.

Of course JP Holding is tweb's resident expert in low context/high context cultures. I expect he will be explaining this in more detail in his debate with skeptikbud here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2487)

Or if you can't wait for JP to respond to SB, then you can check out JP's website here. (http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html)

jason

April 3rd 2003, 05:57 PM

- What?? Are you being serious here? There are descriptions of what were believed to be genuine events in Greek and Roman history which were depicted as (what we today call) mythology. They certainly didn't consider it myth.
Actually there is evidence to suggest many did so. But that is beside the point. Nobody at the time understood these events are happening down the road, a fixed number of years ago in a place you could visit. So it is not reasonable to compare the two.

- Heck, tribal people worshipping Pele aren't "pre history"... we can document how long ago it was that they did so, and that's mythology, don't you agree?
Are they basing there worship and belief on a space-time event that happened a definite time ago ? If not then it is not comparable.

- *sigh* Ground telemmetry can be easily faked, Jason. Give me a week, and I can post a graph scan of one here into the forums that shows I went to Mars. I'm really sorry I even brought it up now... you will be as gullible as is convenient just to ensure we can use average evidence as proof of the resurrection.

It isn't that. Just admit that mundane evidence is sufficient to demonstrate even extraordinary claims.

- I'm not sure I can think of an example too fantastic for you to believe, in comparison. Maybe that's my fault.
Your dragon example is one that is contrived and convenent. And I do not believe it. But there are probably things you could do to convince me of the claim if it where true. That is the point I am trying to make. I'm not asking for rampant gullibility, the opposite actually. It is simply the case that it is possible to demonstrate even fra-out claims.

- Unreachable? If there is empirical evidence, then there's empirical evidence. If not, then there isn't any. What's the problem?
If you make the following demand.

"I will believe in God and Jesus as soon as God sends Jesus down to walk laps of my swimming pool!"

Then you are setting the standard of evidence so high that it cannot reasonably be expected to be met. But if this is the level of evidnece you demand then your not being reasonable anyway.

but, in your case, you demand "empirical evidence", which seems to mean "scientific evidence" which cannot be produced because all historical events are by there nature not repeatable.

- It's true that lots of people make claims, and don't have any empirical evidence for them. They probably say that asking for it is unreasonable as well.
Only if it is unreasonable to demand it. Most historical events will not yeild that sort of evidence, but will you throw out all history becasue of it ?

- Rules of evidence? You'll have to explain what you mean... are you talking about the legal system again?
Yes. History works on "reasonable doubt" just as the legal system does. This isn't a problem though.

- And that's better than science? :ahem: OJ Simpson might agree with you. Personal testimony? Poppycock. I can make up anything I like, get a hundred people to agree with me and testify about it for me. That doesn't make it true.
Who said it was simply personal testimony.

As for being better than science. It is. Science can only examine that which is repeatable. It works well in a limited field, but is useless for most sorts of work, becasue most things that are interesting live outside the ability of science to ask the right questions about it.

- No, it means that if supernatural events were possible, then science would never be able to work because literally any question we ask could be answered by "fairies did it", and we can never prove otherwise.
Utter rubbish. That supernatural events are possible does n ot render science in anyway unworkable. And you can prove otherwise simply by showing an alternative mechanism and explanation (Why does that sound familiar). you don't invoke complex government conspiracies everytime the gerbage man is late, you use a simple hypothesis. Surely you have heard of a guy named bill from a town called occam and some rule he came up with.

- Yes, exactly. Furthermore, anything I offer you that can be easily faked should be immediately ruled out; there are so many con men in the world today, Jason.
Sure. But this is not the same as claiming the biblical events could be faked , which seems to be what you want to claim.

Show how (in the other thread now) that they could be faked, rather than simply tossing confetti into the air.

- I don't actually claim that I went to Mars.
I know.

- Science is the absolute best method we have for approaching the truth about the universe. No other method comes close! Even the legal system is patterned on the scientific method, even if it cannot meet the same standards.
Your right science does work well. Unfortunately next to nothing can actually be examined by it. It is a limited endevour that only works under a specific set of cases. it isn't that it is no good it is simply that it is limited by its requirement.

You don't complain that a car is worthless because it can't fly. A car is not setup to fly and it is stupid to demand that a car should be able to fly.

Likewise science cannot ask questions about history. It thrives on repeatability, and without it, science is left high and dry.

- You tell me what methodology works better than science, and demonstrate it to me. The world will be amazed,
your missing the point. Science does work well, but it cannot answer all questions. Showing me the scientific experiement that demonstrates the beauty inherent in the mona lisa.

- I've justified it several times now, and even you asked me what the simpler explanation is. You just don't like it when you hear it.
you cannot defend it beyond that though. But we shall see in the other thread.

- The resurrection is a myth because of its distinct similarity to other mythological stories, because like other mythological stories it has no empirical evidence in its favor, and because people do not come back to life after three days of being dead.
I see. You need more than this. Fit this claim in with the 12 evidences in the other thread.

"But it's not impossible..." It is, given physical laws.
You have not demonstrated this at all. Where is your evidence ? Or is it simple bald assertion.

"But historical evidence..." Every myth has historical
Not so. Of the myths you cited, a believer in them would look at you oddly if you made such a demand.

"But this was more recent..." So what?
That isn't what I said. don't misrepresent my words. I said it took place in space and time, real history. The mythology you want to comapre it to is not understood to have occured in this fashion at all. Despite your preference for a trying to mix apples and oranges (apples and chalk maybe) they are not comparable.

"But SOMETHING happened..." Says who? The bible?
Says historians everywhere.

- And I bet you think evolutionary theory isn't falsifiable. You'd be wrong, of course.
:rofl:

- I do not need to posit any alternative... YOU need to defend your claim!!
See the other thread. You need to offer some alternative course of events. Sticking you head in the sand and screaming over and over in a muffled voice "But it can't have happened" doesn't change that.

- Ignoring the fact that nonfalsifiable hypotheses are meaningless isn't a defense, either.
It is no less falsifiable than anything you have presented as falsifiable.

- No! Asking me to offer you an alternative is not showing how your hypothesis can be falsified.
Then you don't know what falsification is. Clearly you can sink the entire idea by showing how there is a simpler account that takes into account all the historical evidences we see.

- I'm still waiting! Show me how we could ever prove the resurrection is false, Jason. Don't ask me to defend alternatives, as if by shooting them down you'd automatically have justified your own hypothesis as the only one left possible.
That is how history works. Look at all of the explanations for events and decide which is most plausible. Just as you do in a court of law.

- Now, explain your category error. I suspect it will have something to do with historical evidence. In which case, simply replace my dragon with Apollo, and presto.
You are commiting a category error because you are demanding that a historical event must be explainable in terms of the scientific method. Which cannot be the case. Not becasue historical events are all false, but because the scientific method cannot ask the right question.

- You have a problem? Explain it. I think I've covered pretty much all the bases already... what category error have we made up to somehow undo the damage done when we allow that the resurrection is nonfalsifiable?
I've already told you how to falsigythe resurrection a number of times.

- Immaterial beings cannot interact with a physical universe. I've said this many times, and you seem to ignore it.

Why not ? Oh wait, your going to say, "Becasue it violates the laws of physics!" right ? But you haven't even demonstrated this. Are you really claiming to have perfect knowledge of how the physical universe works ?

- I listed several things that would have to happen in order for a body to be resurrected, and these things happen because of physcial laws of the universe... do you deny that these things happen, or not?
I deny that such things are automatically impossible once an intellgent agent is involved. Next you'll tell me resucitating a dead person is a breach of the laws of physics.

- You want me to tell you how a myth arose? Do you not know how myths arise?
Yes I do. I also know this case doens't fit the profile and that you do see obvious examples of mythical addition to christianity in the right timeframe for such things to develop. But the resurrection account was in place and taught from the beginning of christianity. There is no time for legendary material to get into the account.

What would convince you? An email from the scientists themselves?
No it is simply that you cite a source that is biased in your favour, and unashamedly so.

- Science answers historical questions all the time, Jason.
Science can't even measure the beauty of the mona lisa.

Show me how "science" as you define it can demonstrate that julius caesar crossed the rubicon in 49BC.

I suppose you claim this never happened right ?

Jason

WinAce

April 3rd 2003, 06:44 PM

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Faramir:

Of course there are significant difference between the two as well. The primary difference being that the Ressurection accounts were written in a high context ANE culture. These "little differences" are not only explainable, they are to be expected.[/b]

Semantic games. Just because an ancient Hebrew could ascertain more from a text written in his culture doesn't mean our writings wouldn't be just as "low context" and confusing to him, you know.

The Roswell incident was reported in a low context modern Western culture. In this context, these "little differences" are not as easily explaine, and are in fact damaging to the credibility of the story.

I certainly agree that a Hebrew reading an account from Roswell would be unable to discern from the text what we take for granted; namely, that anyone reporting on the aliens after they're taken must be on the US Army staff, that the US Army has a vested interest in keeping the findings secret, that bodies nowadays are carted off in vehicles, etc.

While both of us wouldn't necessarily fully understand each other's respective writings, the "context" defense only goes so far in defending contradicting testimony.

And does the Roswell incident really need any more "damage to its credibility" than the fact that it states aliens could travel light-years to our planet and then be shot down by primitive aircraft that can't even target a modern jet?

Of course JP Holding is tweb's resident expert in low context/high context cultures. I expect he will be explaining this in more detail in his debate with skeptikbud here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2487)
Or if you can't wait for JP to respond to SB, then you can check out JP's website here. (http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html)

If I wanted to learn something, the last place I'd look would be a sectarian apologetics website like Tektonics or AnswersInGenesis. Why not just use primary sources and cut away the fat and/or idealogically based misrepresentations? ;)

sandlewood

April 3rd 2003, 08:48 PM

Jason, I don’t agree with your description of history and scientific methods. I don’t think it is so simple to say that because historical events are not repeatable we must therefore accept written accounts at face value.

When a written account of history is encountered, questions need to be asked to examine the credibility of the account, and answering them can involve science. If one account claims that a general led his army 200 miles on foot from country A to neighboring country B in a given time, the obvious first questions would be whether these countries are really 200 miles apart and whether it’s possible to travel on foot this far in the time claimed. Although it may seem trivial, the answer involves scientific methods. We can confirm that country A borders country B. This is repeatable by visiting the two countries in person (assuming they still exist). If country A is nowhere near country B but instead is 2000 miles away, we would count that as evidence against the historical account. We can also repeat the march by assembling an army and marching them from country A to country B. If they make it in the time claimed, then that would be repeatable evidence that would add credibility to the account. True, we cannot go back in time to witness the exact same army marching to country B, but we can use scientific methods to provide evidence for or against it.

If an historical account claimed that an army used a particular sort of sword, we can use scientific methods to help confirm it. We might find an example of that sword buried a certain depth in the ground. We can use dating methods to confirm the age of it. Or we can estimate the age based on the depth it was buried. We might be able to confirm the age if the sword was buried at the same depth as another artifact of a know age. We might also estimate the age based on decomposition. This is all scientific evidence. All evidence from these various sources needs to be consistent.

You may say that the absence of any sword does not lend evidence that that the army did not use the sword. They may have, and there were simply none to be found in the ground. So consider a different historical claim: that the sword was made of steel. And the battle was fought long before steel was understood to be invented. If we found no sword, then we would probably conclude that the account was false. The reason is because we have other strong evidence that steel was not invented at that time. It’s more likely the account is wrong. But let’s say that a steel sword was unearthed. It was buried at the depth that indicated its age to be as old as claimed. Is the account true then? Maybe not. Perhaps someone buried a modern sword. But say that dating methods confirm the age of the sword to be old. And it was buried next to other old artifacts. And the amount of decomposition confirmed that it was old. At this point, we may start to believe the account was correct based on scientific evidence. We may start to re-examine more closely the evidence that steel was invented only recently. Perhaps the evidence for old steel is now stronger than our evidence for young steel.

I don’t want to get too far off track though. An important point is that historical claims that contradict our known view of reality do not carry much weight. Claims that a man parted a sea with his hands are weak because, today, no one can part a sea with his hand. The claim is weak because it cannot be repeated. We do not say that scientific methods cannot be applied because it cannot be repeated. All our scientific knowledge about seas and the weight of water is evidence against the claim.

flipper

April 3rd 2003, 10:27 PM

I'm sorry, Sheepdog, but the gospel accounts themselves do not (on their own) constitute compelling evidence for events that are outside nature.

Other such events that many people swear to be true today have not stood up to scientific scrutiny, or have proven themselves to be highly inconclusive. Generally, they appear to demonstrate the willingness of people to believe in all manner of irrational or non-rational things. This, we know to be a typically human trait.

I don't happen to accept alien abduction claims at face value, and I suspect you don't either. However, instead of some dusty old accounts (some of which are attributed by scholars to plagiarism - the 'Q' gospel is such an example), we have thousands of live witnesses, all excitedly proclaiming their alien encounters and the miraculous messages they have received from beyond the stars.

Now I don't discount that something may have happened to these people to convince them of the truth of their claims. Nevertheless, I do not take them at face value, and instead find a psychological or physiological explanation to be far more likely.

To me, a UFO is far more likely to resolve itself as an experimental military craft or as plane landing lights at the right angle than a craft from light years away, populated by alien grays. I don't totally rule it out, but I find it unlikely.

But these stories come with thousands of witnesses, many of whom are considered to be generally impeccable (such as police officers, military men, trained specialists, and so on). Video tape. Audio tape. Still pictures. Radar footage.

If I am still skeptical about the existence of aliens who travel to earth after all of this, explain to me what makes the resurrection a more compelling tale, evidentially?

I strive for consistency.

AtheistArchon

April 4th 2003, 02:21 AM

- Jason, I'm pretty tired, but there's just so much you're backwards on. Let me go ahead and rebutt you one more time in this thread.

Nobody at the time understood these events are happening down the road, a fixed number of years ago in a place you could visit. So it is not reasonable to compare the two.

- What does that even mean? Nobody at the time understood that these events (ancient miracles?) are (did?) happening down the road (in the future?), a fixed number of years ago (wha?) in a place you could visit (wha wha?)... I honestly don't understand what it is you're trying to say.

- Nevertheless, here are some links.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/zeusmyth/

http://www.exovedate.com/ancient_timeline_one.html

- You will notice that the ancient Greeks and Romans have ample mythological history recorded. Honestly, I didn't think this would be an issue for debate.

- Now, my point in mentioning other myths is that these events bear striking similarities to each other. And, of course, they are mythological. What are some of these claims? Why, there's Olympus and Hades, Elysium and Tartarus (heaven and hell), Perseus and Hercules (sons of gods), even Prometheus, a pre-Christian Adam and Eve knowledge story. And, not surprisingly, resurrections abound.

- There is as much historical evidence of these events as there is for the one you believe in. Just because we recognize these ancient myths as being such doesn't mean they don't share the same evidences (and are nonfalsifiable). There is no category error here, you would just like for there to be one, I think.

Are they basing there worship and belief on a space-time event that happened a definite time ago ? If not then it is not comparable.

- Jason, you might base your own belief on an event that you think happened a definite time ago. So what? Who cares what they based their beliefs off of... history is history.

It isn't that. Just admit that mundane evidence is sufficient to demonstrate even extraordinary claims.

- Um, no, I'm not going to "just admit" something I don't believe is true for the sake of your beliefs.

Your dragon example is one that is contrived and convenent. And I do not believe it. But there are probably things you could do to convince me of the claim if it where true. That is the point I am trying to make. I'm not asking for rampant gullibility, the opposite actually. It is simply the case that it is possible to demonstrate even fra-out claims.

- With far-out evidence, yes.

If you make the following demand.

"I will believe in God and Jesus as soon as God sends Jesus down to walk laps of my swimming pool!"

Then you are setting the standard of evidence so high that it cannot reasonably be expected to be met. But if this is the level of evidnece you demand then your not being reasonable anyway.

- But I'm not asking for such a thing (although I agree that this would be pretty extraordinary evidence) lightly... I ask it in the face of a claim that is equally unreasonable, like "Jesus can walk on water".

- If the claim was "I can hold my breath for ten seconds", I wouldn't need any demonstration at all.

but, in your case, you demand "empirical evidence", which seems to mean "scientific evidence"

- That's what it means, yes. Science requires empirical evidence.

which cannot be produced because all historical events are by there nature not repeatable.

- I'm not asking to scientifically test the event, like the scientific method outlines. I'm only asking for empirical evidence. This is how history works as well; the tomb of King Tut is empirical evidence that Tut reigned as a pharaoh, but not that he was a god on Earth, even though that's what most of the people believed and wrote in the tomb.

- I'm not looking to run an experiment, I'm just looking for material items which lead me to believe that such an event happened. That's all.

Only if it is unreasonable to demand it. Most historical events will not yeild that sort of evidence, but will you throw out all history becasue of it ?

- No, of course not. However, as is the case with Greek mythology, I view the evidence (scrolls, tablets, statues, cities) in a scientific manner... I do not instantly believe what is written, I only note that the people who wrote it believed it (or, at very least, thought it was suitable to write down).

Who said it was simply personal testimony.

- As far as I'm aware, the bible, and all historical references to the resurrection (including eye-witnesses) are personal testimony. I may be wrong, but that would mean there is empirical evidence.

As for being better than science. It is. Science can only examine that which is repeatable.

- No. Science examines tremendous amounts of history, and works much better than pure testimony. Take geology for example. All of it happened in the past!

Utter rubbish. That supernatural events are possible does n ot render science in anyway unworkable.

- If we assume that supernatural events can happen here and now, then I have an instant answer for any scientific question that arises: it was a miracle. That answers any question.

Surely you have heard of a guy named bill from a town called occam and some rule he came up with.

- Occam's Razor is not your friend, I do believe.

Sure. But this is not the same as claiming the biblical events could be faked , which seems to be what you want to claim.

- It's entirely possible that they were faked. Nobody can deny that. However, this is not specifically what I claim.

Show how (in the other thread now) that they could be faked, rather than simply tossing confetti into the air.

- Simple to do, really, but it's enough that such fakery is possible. It's possible today, it was possible 2000 years ago.

Likewise science cannot ask questions about history. It thrives on repeatability, and without it, science is left high and dry.

- Science is excellent at examining history. Note, again, simple geology.

your missing the point. Science does work well, but it cannot answer all questions. Showing me the scientific experiement that demonstrates the beauty inherent in the mona lisa.

- Aha, in this point, you are correct. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, your claim (and any claim I would ask for evidence for) is not an aesthetic one, it's an objective one.

You have not demonstrated this at all. Where is your evidence ? Or is it simple bald assertion.

- I can demonstrate it with any cadaver.

That isn't what I said. don't misrepresent my words. I said it took place in space and time, real history. The mythology you want to comapre it to is not understood to have occured in this fashion at all.

- Certainly it is... Athens, Troy, Rhodes... these are real places that existed in real time, and are a part of ancient mythology.

See the other thread. You need to offer some alternative course of events.

- No, actually I don't. See the logical fallacy known as the burden of proof:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

It is no less falsifiable than anything you have presented as falsifiable.

- But again, I do not claim to actually believe in my examples.

Then you don't know what falsification is. Clearly you can sink the entire idea by showing how there is a simpler account that takes into account all the historical evidences we see.

- That is not falsificationism. I think we've already agreed that the resurrection is nonfalsifiable... that means that your claim is bulletproof by design. There is no way I can ever show that it did not happen, and this is a keystone of bogus claims. The reason I made up the dragon example is to show you that.

You are commiting a category error because you are demanding that a historical event must be explainable in terms of the scientific method. Which cannot be the case. Not becasue historical events are all false, but because the scientific method cannot ask the right question.

- Science is excellent at determining historical truths. We do not need to experiment with the event, we only need empirical evidence of the event.

I've already told you how to falsigythe resurrection a number of times.

- You did? But earlier you said "You cannot show the resurrection to be scientifically false". :huh:

Why not ? Oh wait, your going to say, "Becasue it violates the laws of physics!" right ? But you haven't even demonstrated this. Are you really claiming to have perfect knowledge of how the physical universe works ?

- By definition, an immaterial being cannot interact with the material world. Look at the words. Material... immaterial.

- An immaterial being has no way of, say, moving a ball. His immaterial hand would pass right through it, because he has no material with which to push it.

I deny that such things are automatically impossible once an intellgent agent is involved.

- Intelligent agents are beside the point. Immaterial beings cannot act upon the physical universe. A ghost can be as intelligent as Einstein, and he will never move the ball.

Next you'll tell me resucitating a dead person is a breach of the laws of physics.

- Three days dead, after decomposition of the corpse, yes.

Yes I do. I also know this case doens't fit the profile and that you do see obvious examples of mythical addition to christianity in the right timeframe for such things to develop. But the resurrection account was in place and taught from the beginning of christianity. There is no time for legendary material to get into the account.

- Resurrection myths have been around since long before Christianity. All it takes is for one small group of people to start believing it, and start spreading the word.

No it is simply that you cite a source that is biased in your favour, and unashamedly so.

- It is scientific, if that's what you mean. What, shall I use another method?

- It's past 1am here, and I'm tired. I will engage you in the resurrection thread, but I'm afraid we've pretty much demolished this one.