Starting with God, the Bible or Jesus?

[ClaimedToBeWise]

By the way, how much more evidence does that first premise in the KCA need? All our observable data suggests this premise is true and so far nothing has conclusively falsified it. The closest anyone seems to have come is suggesting virtual particles. Even if they are real, which it doesn’t seem to be clear that they are, they do not come into existence without a cause strictly speaking – i.e. a quantum vacuum. Look at it this way, there are many more reasons to think that (1) is true than to think it is false. So yes, as far as an argument can be sound, I would say it is. If the first premise of the KCA can be objected to then I’m not sure any argument can be sound.

Seriously? I think the first premise of the KCA is incredibly weak!

"Everything that begins to exist ..." seems to be referring to our everyday experience of identifying objects, yet in (almost!) every case, these objects did not "begin to exist" in the sense that William Lane Craig wants to nudge us towards. Everything you see around you is just a reorganisation of pre-existing matter and energy. My body "began to exist" when the sperm met the egg, but again, this is just a reorganisation of matter (the sperm and the egg), not something that has been created out of nothing. It is only your object-identifying brain that labels it as something "new".

What it boils down to is that there are two possible examples of things "beginning to exist" - virtual particles in a quantum vacuum, and the universe. The virtual particles are a very new discovery and we don't know enough about them to make strong conclusions, or form a solid premise. Whether the universe "began to exist" is itself the second premise, so it's basically question-begging.

On a related note, are there any physicists/cosmologists out there that actually say "the universe began to exist" in the sense that there was nothing and then there was something?

[ZackMartin]

the NT clearly teaches against this with many explicit examples of Jesus' physicality during His resurrection appearances(eating food, Thomas touching his wounds, etc,),

There are two possibilities here (1) the NT is not as trustworthy as you think it is (2) apparent physicality is not incompatible with the hypothesis that the disciples saw Jesus' ghost. There are claims that ghosts can affect physical matter, produce tactile sensations, etc. - poltergeists, ectoplasm, etc. Maybe when Thomas put his hand into Jesus' ghostly wounds, the ghost of Jesus caused pressure to be felt on his hands, making him think he touched something physical? Maybe Jesus' ghost ate ghostly food? Or he made it look like he was eating real food, but was actually transporting it out the back window using his poltergeist powers?

and since the NT is trustworthy (for this I recommend a book called "Trusting the New Testament")

I have not read that particular book, I shall consider doing so. But I've heard many arguments that the NT is reliable, and I have not been very impressed; I think many arguments try hard to look impressive on the surface, but look less so when you dig into them deeper

[ZackMartin]

Sure you can SAY that about both Christian and Hindu miracles, but when does the evidence and probability support such a claim? I have, in fact, investigated alleged miracles from Buddhism and Hinduism and found supernatural explanations lacking. I have found the same for some Christian post-apostolic miracles too.

And we should take your word for that, or do such an investigation ourselves? But we don't all have the time or resources to investigate this matter in detail. And even if you have investigated some Hindu or Buddhist miracles, have you investigated them all?

I don't say this, but I have heard that some exorcists have listed criteria to know whether an act is from the devil or not, and Jesus' acts aren't, so the counter would need to address those.

How do we know that the criteria the exorcists have produced are right? Maybe these so-called exorcists are actually themselves under the power of Satan, and their criteria are Satan's lies?

First of all there's no evidence the demons' leaving was "temporary".

There's no evidence it is permanent either. Take for example Mark 1:21-28. The text says (whether or not we should believe it) that Jesus cast the demon ought; it doesn't mention what happened to the man after that. It doesn't even give the man's name, or any details about him whatsoever. For all we know, the demon could have come back the next week; the text is completely silent on that issue.

Second Christianity didn't cause any rise in actual possession so the Devil would still be losing.

Since we have no idea what the rates of demonic possession were historically - we don't even have any agreed objective criteria to decide who is possessed and who is not - it is impossible to make any such conclusion.

Even if Jesus were a false prophet under Satan, at worst he increased demonic influence, not possession.

How so?

What? Did you just defend Jesus' argument and then claim it is false? I'm sorry, but the above is very poorly worded and I either don't see your point or don't see how it refutes what Jesus was saying.

Jesus is saying, he can't be a servant of Satan, because Satan's servants would not cast out demons, because a house divided against itself cannot stand. But this ignores the fact, that the house of evil often doesn't stand, because evildoers hate each other as much as they hate the good. One can imagine Satan's servants belong to various factions, who hate each other just as much as they hate God - this matches our knowledge of the world, where evildoers often hate each other just as much as they hate good - Hitler and Stalin were both evil men motivated by evil ideologies, but each hated the beliefs for which the other stood. So, why could not a false prophet, belonging to one faction of demons, cast out a demon belonging to another faction?

Argumentum ad populum.

Isn't always wrong. It is fallacious to argue "Most people believe this so it must be true". But that doesn't mean that the beliefs of the majority are completely irrelevant to the matter. If a thousand people investigate a question, and all come to the same conclusion, that is no certain proof the conclusion is right, but it is much more likely to be right than if those thousand people come to many different conclusions. This is the same principle we base the jury system on - twelve people agreeing are less likely to be wrong than one person alone.

Erm, since the various skeptical hypotheses contradict one another you can't stack them.

Yes you can. You can accept them in the alternate. You can say, I don't know which of A or B or C or D are true, but I believe that one of them is. The probability that at least one of them is true is going to be the sum of the individual probabilities of each of them; since the sum is greater than the alternatives, the disjunction has a higher probability than any of the individual disjuncts.

Besides, the evidence for them or their implications is so lacking (or against them) their probability is at-or-near 0.

You can say the probability is small, sure, but to say it is absolutely zero seems like an unjustified leap. And then it all depends on what probability you assign to the Orthodox hypothesis. Someone might give the sceptical hypothesises a small probability close to 0, and then the Orthodox Christian hypothesis an even smaller one, even closer to 0. Given such an assignment, one ought to reject the Orthodox Christian hypothesis in favour of the disjunction of the sceptical alternatives.

Unlikely events can and do happen; but when unlikely events happen, they will have unlikely explanations. If the existence of the Christian resurrection claims is unlikely in itself, then any explanation for its happening (in spite of the inherent unlikelihood of it doing so) will be itself unlikely.

And regardless, a high probability for the "orthodox Christian hypothesis" can make us disregard these.

Sure, if you can demonstrate that.

Again, you can't stack these with the naturalistic hypotheses because they refute each other.

Yes you can: P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B). Since for any probability p, 0 <= p <= 1, it follows that P(A or B) >= P(A) and P(A or B) >= P(B). As long as P(A) > 0 and P(B) > 0, then it follows that P(A or B) > P(A) and P(A or B) > P(B). The disjunction is more likely to be true than any of its disjuncts individually.

But all of these alternative ideas either are so ridiculous you might as well believe the "orthodox Christian hypothesis", or their probability is at-or-near 0.

You think they are ridiculous, other people don't. Of course, the fact that there is no rigorous procedure to assign probabilities to historical events, and all we can do is use our best judgement, makes this whole process highly subjective. One could believe that all the explanations have probabilities near zero, but the orthodox Christian hypothesis has a probability closer to zero than the disjunction of the sceptical hypothesises.

The arguments weren't made to "convince" you. They're written to pass objective historical criteria.

History in practice is rather subjective. It relies on deciding what is the most likely explanation, but unlike in the natural sciences, or much of the social sciences and psychology, we lack rigorous procedures (such as statistics or probability) to quantify these likelihoods. All historians can do, is use their best judgement. Which is why you will find respected historians at times reaching completely opposite conclusions about the same issue, despite having access to all the same evidence.

Again, there are objective historical criteria that we can test the resurrection and other miracles with. There's nothing "subjective" about it.

History is not as objective as you think it is.

[ZackMartin]

You're really claiming that miracles don't happen in today's world (no not stuff like Mary's image on some random object either, but answered prayers, healings etc.)? I know you would reject it as "anecdotal evidence", but I have personally experienced miracles, and what many would call "supernatural activity", and I know a great deal of people with similar experiences in both arenas. My own personal experience has to do with a miraculous healing(the miracle experience, not the "supernatural activity" one), and if it had not happened when it did, I wouldn't be here today. Also my mom worked at a hospital, where a baby had been declared dead, only after a little while of prayer, the baby came back to life, the doctors have no explanation either(this one was even on Unsolved Mysteries). Miracles happen far more often than people might think, not to mention that life itself is a miracle, and is all around us(the laws of nature can't cause life by random chance, it just doesn't work that way, abiogenesis was disproved long ago). The Resurrection has far more historical basis than many ancient events, miraculous or not.

Sure, things that people call "miracles" sometimes happen. Just because they call it a miracle, is no proof that it is one.

For example: someone has cancer, doctors say they are not long to live, then without even treatment suddenly the cancer goes away. Not common, but it does happen on occasion. No miracle here. But you add a prayer in there somewhere, and suddenly people will say the prayer was answered, a miracle. But would the spontaneous remission have happened anyway without the prayer? No one knows. Or, more commonly I think, the patient actually does get treatment, but the treatment turns out a lot more successful than the doctor's expectations (remembering that the doctor's expectations are only an average - they know sometimes things turn out much better or much worse than average). No prayer involved, one would just say, there are still a lot of holes in our knowledge of cancer, and there are many possible natural explanations for while sometimes the same treatment works better than other times. But you add a prayer, and suddenly people are saying that their above-average treatment outcome is a miracle.

My father's friend has advanced melanoma; they told him he had less than six months to live. But then they did some genetic tests, and discovered he had this particular faulty gene, so they put him on a new drug which targets that faulty gene, and he is doing a lot better than he was a few months back. My dad's mum has recently been diagnosed with stage IV melanoma too, but not as advanced. Turns out she doesn't have that faulty gene, so she isn't eligible for that drug; but on the positive side, they now think she has a less aggressive than usual form of malignant melanoma, which improves the prognosis. We are only just learning a lot of the genes, etc., involved in cancer. If for one patient the therapy works wonders and they go into remission, and for another the same therapy doesn't work and they die, is that because one prayed and the other didn't? Or both prayed, but God chose to answer one prayer and not the other? Or is it because one has a gene the other doesn't, but we don't know enough about genetics yet, and we still have much work to do in developing targeted therapies based on genetic knowledge?

I believe in prayer, but I'm sceptical about claims that "I was healed miraculously because I prayed". I am more sympathetic to claims like, "I realised I was a pretty awful example of a human being, so I decided to pray every day for God to make me a better person, and now some time later I'm still a pretty awful example of a human being, but not quite as awful as I used to be." But the later isn't necessarily miraculous - prayer can have a real impact on your psychology and your character, and that impact can be explained in a non-supernatural manner.

[ZackMartin]

What we “feel” about an argument is irrelevant. We can't reject/accept arguments because of how we "feel" about them. If that is all there is to it then there isn't really much point debating is there?

I think you are getting too hung up on the word "feel" here. I mean, I have studied these arguments in some detail, and have not found any of them convincing - most of them are valid, but their premises are questionable, and their arguments in favour of those premises are weak - and having studied several of them, I have formed the view that it is unlikely that any argument of this sort will succeed. I think this view has some rational basis, but I used the word "feel" to express that I am less than completely certain about it, due to the complexity of the investigation that produced it, and all it takes is for me to have got one step wrong for the conclusion to be false.

But are there legitimate reasons to doubt (1)? We can conceivably dispute any premise on the grounds that we don’t personally think it has sufficient evidence to support it thereby claiming we are not convinced. However, that is not in itself the same as falsifying the premise. Consider the classic argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Does the first premise of that argument have enough evidence to support it considering it is a universal claim? Are there legitimate reasons to doubt it? Well, if we apply your reasoning consistently I think we have to concede that no it doesn’t have enough evidence and thus we can doubt it. Perhaps some immortal man, for fear of discovery, has lived in a remote cave somewhere and managed to escape notice for the last few thousand years. Maybe there is a race of humans on some unknown distance planet or other universe that are indeed immortal. So the question becomes are conceptual possibilities legitimate reasons to overturn the reality of our collective experience? I don’t think they are.

My argument against premise (1) is based on overgeneralization from the quotidian domain to the super-quotidian (the entire universe as a whole) or the sub-quotidian (the quantum scale). The assumption "All men are mortal" is based on our quotidian experience, it is not an attempt to generalize our quotidian experience to something else, so I don't see it as being subject to the same attack.

By the way, how much more evidence does that first premise in the KCA need? All our observable data suggests this premise is true and so far nothing has conclusively falsified it.

Risk of overgeneralisation - just because a general principle is demonstrated in one domain, does not prove it is true in a radically different domain. It is one thing to conclude something is true for the objects of everyday life, it is another to extend that conclusion to the very different issue of the universe as a whole.

The closest anyone seems to have come is suggesting virtual particles. Even if they are real, which it doesn’t seem to be clear that they are, they do not come into existence without a cause strictly speaking – i.e. a quantum vacuum.

Well, this is part of the problem - the concept "cause" is not clearly defined. It's pretty clear in everyday cases what constitutes a cause and what does not, but when we get to questions like quantum physics, it becomes slippery and ambiguous. This is part of my point - concepts that work fine in everyday situations can't always be transferred without modification to radically different situations, whereas the premise "all things that begin to exist have a cause" seems to assume that they can be.

Look at it this way, there are many more reasons to think that (1) is true than to think it is false. So yes, as far as an argument can be sound, I would say it is. If the first premise of the KCA can be objected to then I’m not sure any argument can be sound.

There are many reasons to think that weaker principles are true, e.g. "with extremely high probability, physical objects of a certain scale, do not begin to exist without a cause". The weaker principles do not necessarily imply the stronger principle you have in (1).

Note I'm not denying your principle (1). It may well be true. I'm just arguing it cannot be demonstrated to be true from a neutral basis. I in fact believe it is probably true; but rather than using it to prove God, I use God to prove it. So it would be circular for me to try to use that principle to try to prove God.

[Doug Shaver]

Also you are mistaken that that is the "only evidence".

Nobody has shown me any other.

Everything in that has a beginning needs a sufficient cause, and this is admitted by most people

It is believed by most people. It has never been proved.

[GioD]

And we should take your word for that, or do such an investigation ourselves?

Depends.

But we don't all have the time or resources to investigate this matter in detail.

So? Sometimes even one point being true or false can refute or prove the rest.

And even if you have investigated some Hindu or Buddhist miracles, have you investigated them all?

Do I have to? I'll investigate them as they are claimed, and evidence presented.

How do we know that the criteria the exorcists have produced are right? Maybe these so-called exorcists are actually themselves under the power of Satan, and their criteria are Satan's lies?

You're just screaming "conspiracy!" without actually giving any reason to believe you. There's no more reason to believe you on this than there is a moon-landing conspiracy theorist on the, well, moon-landing.

There's no evidence it is permanent either. Take for example Mark 1:21-28. The text says (whether or not we should believe it) that Jesus cast the demon ought; it doesn't mention what happened to the man after that. It doesn't even give the man's name, or any details about him whatsoever. For all we know, the demon could have come back the next week; the text is completely silent on that issue.

You're making a counterintuitive claim, you need to provide the evidence. Exorcisms by definition permanently remove the demon unless the person brings him back as an act of will, if you want to object to either that definition or that it happened you need to provide the evidence.

Since we have no idea what the rates of demonic possession were historically - we don't even have any agreed objective criteria to decide who is possessed and who is not - it is impossible to make any such conclusion.

The only reason the criteria for demonic possession aren't "agreed" upon is because people such as yourself make question-begging claims that they can't be trusted. No significant amount of the Early Christians demonstrated anything resembling demonic possession. No significant amount of the Jews after Jesus' coming did either. And yes, there are ancient historians, clergy and physicians who would record these if they happened. Jesus couldn't have caused en masse demonic possession that is unknown to us.

How so?

Because no significant amount of the Early Christians demonstrated anything resembling demonic possession. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist and claim the Apostolic miracles are examples of that they're not, they're at worst demonic influence, not possession, which was my point.

So, why could not a false prophet, belonging to one faction of demons, cast out a demon belonging to another faction?

Demons don't have "factions". You're operating on some kind of occultist view of demons that is not accurate based on a Jewish or Christian view of the issue, which you have to operate on in order for this claim to work.

If a thousand people investigate a question, and all come to the same conclusion, that is no certain proof the conclusion is right, but it is much more likely to be right than if those thousand people come to many different conclusions. This is the same principle we base the jury system on - twelve people agreeing are less likely to be wrong than one person alone.

One problem - most people don't "Investigate" the issues at hand. They choose a position and read arguments for it.

Yes you can. You can accept them in the alternate. You can say, I don't know which of A or B or C or D are true, but I believe that one of them is. The probability that at least one of them is true is going to be the sum of the individual probabilities of each of them; since the sum is greater than the alternatives, the disjunction has a higher probability than any of the individual disjuncts.

But in order to even assign a probability to one you have to assign a lower probability to another. It's dogmatic question-begging to simply stack them with no regards to their relation with each other.

You can say the probability is small, sure, but to say it is absolutely zero seems like an unjustified leap.

No. If a hypothesis results in a certain contradiction it has a probability of zero.

And then it all depends on what probability you assign to the Orthodox hypothesis. Someone might give the sceptical hypothesises a small probability close to 0, and then the Orthodox Christian hypothesis an even smaller one, even closer to 0. Given such an assignment, one ought to reject the Orthodox Christian hypothesis in favour of the disjunction of the sceptical alternatives.

Yeah, and somebody might not. Stop operating on possibility and make a serious argument.

Unlikely events can and do happen; but when unlikely events happen, they will have unlikely explanations. If the existence of the Christian resurrection claims is unlikely in itself, then any explanation for its happening (in spite of the inherent unlikelihood of it doing so) will be itself unlikely.

Says who? You?

Sure, if you can demonstrate that.

Explain the image on the Shroud of Turin.

Yes you can: P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B). Since for any probability p, 0 <= p <= 1, it follows that P(A or B) >= P(A) and P(A or B) >= P(B). As long as P(A) > 0 and P(B) > 0, then it follows that P(A or B) > P(A) and P(A or B) > P(B). The disjunction is more likely to be true than any of its disjuncts individually.

Yes adding it together will be larger than any individual, my point was each individual's probability was lowered by your assigning a high probability to another individual, lowering the probability as a whole. Assigning a high probability to some may even result in another's probability being zero, not allowing you to add them at all! For instance, you can't appeal both to a high probability of materialism AND the possibility of a spiritual resurrection, because the former, if true, results in the probability of zero of the latter.

You think they are ridiculous, other people don't.

Get it through your head: I don't care what other people think!!! I care about objective, historical criteria. I really don't care if it "convinces" you. Fine. Don't be convinced. Just show how it doesn't pass the objective criteria or don't comment on the issue.

Of course, the fact that there is no rigorous procedure to assign probabilities to historical events

You're kidding right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteri...storical_Jesus

One could believe that all the explanations have probabilities near zero, but the orthodox Christian hypothesis has a probability closer to zero than the disjunction of the sceptical hypothesises.

See, it's funny because I have no reason to believe these claims by your own admission and definition of historical analysis. Your case for history as subjective destroys your own argument.

History in practice is rather subjective. It relies on deciding what is the most likely explanation, but unlike in the natural sciences, or much of the social sciences and psychology, we lack rigorous procedures (such as statistics or probability) to quantify these likelihoods.All historians can do, is use their best judgement.

Again, you are simply wrong here! See the links provided, do a study of the historical method, probability calculuses, and criteria of authenticity, then come back here.

Which is why you will find respected historians at times reaching completely opposite conclusions about the same issue, despite having access to all the same evidence.

No, this is due to different presuppositions and interpretations of evidence, not any subjective way of analyzing historical claims.

History is not as objective as you think it is.

It's not as subjective as you want it to be.

[ZackMartin]

So? Sometimes even one point being true or false can refute or prove the rest.

Proving one claimed miracle, of any religion, false, does not prove that all the other claimed miracles are false. And proving one claimed miracle, of any religion, true, does not rpove that all the other claimed miracles are true.

Do I have to? I'll investigate them as they are claimed, and evidence presented.

My own investigation into miracles has reached the conclusions that no miracles are likely, and any religion's claims of miracles is just as doubtful as that of any other.

You're just screaming "conspiracy!" without actually giving any reason to believe you.

I'm not saying there is any "conspiracy". I'm just saying there is no evidence there isn't one.

There's no more reason to believe you on this than there is a moon-landing conspiracy theorist on the, well, moon-landing.

There is plenty of evidence available to cast doubt on the moon-landing conspiracy theory is false. Where's the evidence that the "many so-called exorcists are possessed by Satan" theory is false?

You're making a counterintuitive claim, you need to provide the evidence. Exorcisms by definition permanently remove the demon unless the person brings him back as an act of will, if you want to object to either that definition or that it happened you need to provide the evidence.

You are making the claim that the apparent exorcism in Mark 1:21-28 was permanent. I'm not saying it was, I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just saying we have no evidence either way. Since you are making the positive assertion, the onus of providing evidence is on you.

You can define "exorcism" however you want, but just because a person appears to be cured of whatever symptoms lead people to believe they were possessed by demons, is no evidence that those symptoms will not return later. Considering that many of the "exorcisms" in the NT were likely people suffering from mental illness, it is reasonably common for mentally ill people to improve significantly for a time, only to face a recurrence of the illness some time later. So we have no evidence that the apparent exorcisms in the NT were permanent.

The only reason the criteria for demonic possession aren't "agreed" upon is because people such as yourself make question-begging claims that they can't be trusted.

No, the reason they can't be agreed is because we lack any agreed procedure to evaluate whether they are correct or not. How do you tell if a person really has a demon, as opposed to say a psychotic illness of natural origin? Is there a demon-meter you hook them up to check for a demonic presence? There isn't.

No significant amount of the Early Christians demonstrated anything resembling demonic possession. No significant amount of the Jews after Jesus' coming did either. And yes, there are ancient historians, clergy and physicians who would record these if they happened. Jesus couldn't have caused en masse demonic possession that is unknown to us.

How do you decide whether people are possessed by demons or not? You are assuming a certain set of criteria for demon-possession is true, but you haven't produced any evidence those criteria are correct.

Because no significant amount of the Early Christians demonstrated anything resembling demonic possession. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist and claim the Apostolic miracles are examples of that they're not, they're at worst demonic influence, not possession, which was my point.

You need to provide a clear explanation of the difference between demonic influence and demonic possession, and justify that explanation as correct.

Demons don't have "factions". You're operating on some kind of occultist view of demons that is not accurate based on a Jewish or Christian view of the issue, which you have to operate on in order for this claim to work.

You are engaging in circular argumentation, you are assuming a traditional Jewish or Christian view of demons, as opposed to some alternative view, is correct, and then using that assumption to try to prove Christianity true. But only if Christianity or Judaism are true are we justified in accepting their view of demons is more correct than any alternative perspectives. So you assume your conclusion in your premises.

One problem - most people don't "Investigate" the issues at hand. They choose a position and read arguments for it.

True, but that accusation can be levied against anyone and everyone. If you choose to levy that accusation against others, they could equally choose to levy it against you.

But in order to even assign a probability to one you have to assign a lower probability to another.

No you don't. Take a fair coin toss. I assign a probability of 1/2 to heads. Do I have to assign a lower probability to tails? No, I assign it 1/2 also. Likewise, if I have a pair of dice, what's the probability of their sum being 2? It is one in thirty-six. Does that mean the other outcomes must have a lesser probability? No, in fact some of the other outcomes have higher probabilities than that; for example, the probability of their sum being 3 is twice as high, it is one in eighteen.

It's dogmatic question-begging to simply stack them with no regards to their relation with each other.

It's a disjunction. Disjunctions are entirely legitimate. In logic, an inclusive disjunction of propositions is true if any of those disjunct propositions are true.

No. If a hypothesis results in a certain contradiction it has a probability of zero.

You are confusing conjunction with disjunction. The conjunction of two contradictory hypothesises is indeed zero. Assuming the hypothesises are in themselves more likely than zero, then their inclusive disjunction must have a probability greater than zero; in fact, if the contradictory hypothesises completely exhaust the possibilities, we can expect their inclusive disjunction to have a probability of 1.

Yeah, and somebody might not. Stop operating on possibility and make a serious argument.

What probability do you assign to the "Orthodox Christian hypothesis"? And what is the probability you assign to it? Remember that you are the one defending it, not I, so if you believe it is highly likely, the onus is on you to demonstrate that.

Says who? You?

Says simple logic. Unlikely events can and do happen. Consider a lottery - any one person winning the lottery is extremely unlikely, the odds of any one particular person winning it can be less than a million to one. Suppose Jeff wins millions of dollars in the lottery. Then Jeff would say that an extremely unlikely event nonetheless happened to him. So this example demonstrates, unlikely events can and do happen.

And when unlikely events happen, they have unlikely explanations. Let's say Jeff is a member of the working poor, with a limited education and a low-paying job; he would be unlikely to ever afford a multi-million dollar mansion. So the odds that he'll ever live in one are very low. And yet, after winning the lottery, he buys himself one and moves into it. So here we have an extremely unlikely event (Jeff living in a multi-million dollar mansion) actually happening, but this extremely unlikely event is explained by an extremely unlikely explanation (Jeff won the lottery.)

Explain the image on the Shroud of Turin.

I don't believe anyone has produced a convincing explanation for this. A range of hypothesises have been made, but I don't think any of them can be conclusively ruled in or out at this stage.

Yes adding it together will be larger than any individual, my point was each individual's probability was lowered by your assigning a high probability to another individual, lowering the probability as a whole.

You can raise and lower the probabilities of the disjuncts while leaving the probability of the disjunction the same. P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B). If I raise P(A) by 0.1, and lower P(B) by 0.1 at the same time, then P(A or B) stays the same. So it's not clear what your point is.

Assigning a high probability to some may even result in another's probability being zero,

It might, then again it might not. It all depends on the exact assignments you make.

not allowing you to add them at all!

What? Zero probabilities can still be added. 0 + 0 = 0. 0 + 1 = 1. Just because a probability is zero, doesn't mean we can't add it.

For instance, you can't appeal both to a high probability of materialism AND the possibility of a spiritual resurrection, because the former, if true, results in the probability of zero of the latter.

Where have I appealed to a high probability of materialism? I'm not a materialist. None of the sceptical hypothesises require materialism to be true.

Get it through your head: I don't care what other people think!!! I care about objective, historical criteria. I really don't care if it "convinces" you. Fine. Don't be convinced. Just show how it doesn't pass the objective criteria or don't comment on the issue.

I think you need to calm down a bit.

You're kidding right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

No, I'm not kidding at all. Bayesian probability is a nice idea in theory, but it is often much harder to apply in practice than its advocates would have us believe. The reason why it is hard to apply in practice, is that in many cases it is difficult to justify one set of probability assignments as more correct than the others. I have seen cases of it being applied to significant success - e.g. spam filtering in computers - where it is possible to be rigorous in one's methods of assigning probabilities, but when we come to matters of history, it is much more difficult to justify one set of probability assignments as more correct than another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteri...storical_Jesus

Nothing here changes my point - it is impossible to be rigorous in one's probability assignments in history, they inevitably involve an element of subjectivity. Nothing in the article you have linked changes that. Take for example, the "criterion of multiple attestation". We can all agree, that if this criterion is true for some claim, the claim is more likely to be true. But how much more likely exactly? That is a question no one can answer.

See, it's funny because I have no reason to believe these claims by your own admission and definition of historical analysis. Your case for history as subjective destroys your own argument.

I never said history was entirely subjective. It has an objective element. I just said it is more subjective than you seem to think.

I agree completely that there is objective truth in history. Something happened one Sunday near Jerusalem in the first century AD. But just because something must have happened, doesn't mean we necessarily can know what that something was. The subjective element comes in, not in the event itself, but in the limitations of our ability to know it.

Again, you are simply wrong here! See the links provided, do a study of the historical method, probability calculuses, and criteria of authenticity, then come back here.

I'm reasonably already familiar with those things. They don't demonstrate what you think they do.

No, this is due to different presuppositions and interpretations of evidence, not any subjective way of analyzing historical claims.

The "different presuppositions and interpretations of evidence" is the very subjective element I was referring to.

It's not as subjective as you want it to be.

It's not as objective as you want it to be.

[headheart]

Yes. I believe that if the miracles recorded in the Bible are true it gives us good reason to believe in God as the cause of those. The miracles of the Bible can be verified historically (at leas the resurrection), so it's fine to start there. The one "big issue" that we may have to start with is the logical possibility of God.

Hi GioD,
What follows is a continuation of my reply to you which began in post 51:

As to the matter of miracles I think that we are faced with other difficulties for as science is making many of our prior assumption in this regard disappear into that mist (I referred to) we are faced with other more daunting challenges with regard to consciousness and whether our entire historical record is not merely the gathering of magical tales which are simply a by-product of an evolved social religious experience and nothing more.

I've watched and read some perplexing stuff by a lawyer by the name of Victor Zammit (I'm not entirely sure what to make of him) and bathed my willowy whimsical whit in the wild and wacky w-unexplained pages of a book by Colin Wilson titled 'Supernatural' and though granted there is still much we do not yet know or understand about our world and the Universe at large, it is my theory that the whole argument for the existence of G-d when approached from that sort of angle falls as flat as those ancient and modern mariner's tales of places where one might drop off the edge of the world, disappear into the Bermuda Triangle, be abducted by Aliens who came here in a UFO in the time of the Egyptians - built the pyramids or even seeded life, impregnated our species who later gave birth to giants and men of might and valor. Magical incantations that when recited make the dead come to life might be more interesting than all of that but daresay that sort of thing works better on the silver screen than in history, science, biology and anthropology classes though there is certainly a considerable collection of the fantastic accounts and the resurrection is at least from the Christian perspective at the top of that pile. Therefore as with the claim of biblical accuracy being somewhere close to 99% (a statistic that is certainly bothersome to me) I'd more impressed with arguments that prove Near Death Experiences than I would be with the meager secular historical hints at the resurrection of Jesus and therefore hold these beliefs in my heart where it seems they were made to fit more comfortable than on the chopping board of some laboratory.
In short, I've always felt that it is best to establish whether or not there is reasonable grounds for the existence of the G-d of the Bible if one is going to go that root before one turns to the matter of the gospel. I'm not saying it is a set pattern, but in my own way of doing this I much prefer discussing alternative approaches to this which involve rigorous application of something similar to the contemplative prayer techniques employed in the Eastern Orthodox tradition (though I think that this is lacking and better shown in the lives of men like Henri Le Saux and Thomas Merton) and a direct encounter with G-d motivated by the fact that the other pathways run into dead ends and leave one either devoid of the spunk to continue as a Christian or with a dry bones approach to a life which is apparently meant to be about abundance and self sacrifice.

Peace,
Eric

[GioD]

Proving one claimed miracle, of any religion, false, does not prove that all the other claimed miracles are false. And proving one claimed miracle, of any religion, true, does not rpove that all the other claimed miracles are true.

While it may not refute the other miracles a single miracle being false or true can refute a whole religion, which would, if nothing else, make the other miracles not be likely to both be true and support it.

You are engaging in circular argumentation, you are assuming a traditional Jewish or Christian view of demons, as opposed to some alternative view, is correct, and then using that assumption to try to prove Christianity true. But only if Christianity or Judaism are true are we justified in accepting their view of demons is more correct than any alternative perspectives. So you assume your conclusion in your premises.

I cut out the rest of the stuff on demons because it's increasingly tiring to answer point-by-point, so instead I will offer sources. To understand demonic possession in the Catholic tradition, which has been strong since at latest the early middle ages, see http://religiousdemonology.com/howdoyouknow.htm. Also see volume two of Fr. Chad Ripperger's Introduction to the Science of Mental Health and Fr. Gabriele Amorth's An Exorcist tells his Story, which the former recommends. These explain what demonic possession is, demonic influence is, and what exorcisms are.

I do, however, want to address this claim. It is not circular to make one operate on one's own grounds for a debate, which is what I'm doing. Under any other view of demons what Jesus did can always be dismissed because they can always argue something like "there's another faction of demons". There's no point even arguing because as long as I refute one claim, they can add one more faction, regardless of whether or not that's verifiable.

True, but that accusation can be levied against anyone and everyone. If you choose to levy that accusation against others, they could equally choose to levy it against you.

And you can.

No you don't. Take a fair coin toss. I assign a probability of 1/2 to heads. Do I have to assign a lower probability to tails? No, I assign it 1/2 also. Likewise, if I have a pair of dice, what's the probability of their sum being 2? It is one in thirty-six. Does that mean the other outcomes must have a lesser probability? No, in fact some of the other outcomes have higher probabilities than that; for example, the probability of their sum being 3 is twice as high, it is one in eighteen.

Fair enough. (I'm cutting most of the rest of the probability logic out after this since I came to agree). I didn't answer you on my assigned probability of the orthodox Christian hypothesis because I am not very good at actually calculating probabilities.

And when unlikely events happen, they have unlikely explanations. Let's say Jeff is a member of the working poor, with a limited education and a low-paying job; he would be unlikely to ever afford a multi-million dollar mansion. So the odds that he'll ever live in one are very low. And yet, after winning the lottery, he buys himself one and moves into it. So here we have an extremely unlikely event (Jeff living in a multi-million dollar mansion) actually happening, but this extremely unlikely event is explained by an extremely unlikely explanation (Jeff won the lottery.)

But wouldn't the explanation's inductive probability increase once we let in the event and the context? I think it would.

I don't believe anyone has produced a convincing explanation for this. A range of hypothesises have been made, but I don't think any of them can be conclusively ruled in or out at this stage.

Actually, many can be ruled out. Every form of the medieval/ancient forgery hypothesis has been refuted by the ENEA study. See http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...shroud-is.html.

More importantly, the strongest hypothesis, when compared with the ENEA study, implies the resurrection and accounts for every trait the Shroud has! http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...ventional.html (Sadly most of this would be very difficult both to verify and summarize so I am giving links.)

I think you need to calm down a bit.

I was being blunt, I can assure you I'm not angry.

The "different presuppositions and interpretations of evidence" is the very subjective element I was referring to.

OK, different presuppositions are objectively verifiable (I was referring to things like metaphysical naturalism), so that leaves interpretations of evidence. However, people can argue for or against a certain interpretation by objective means. Take for instance the meaning of "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians. One can argue for an interpretation of that as referring to a physical body, or ghostly one, but whichever you argue for, you can still make a case for it based on objective linguistic and historical analysis. So as I was referring to them, both of these are objectively verifiable.

[Cerebrum123]

There are two possibilities here (1) the NT is not as trustworthy as you think it is (2) apparent physicality is not incompatible with the hypothesis that the disciples saw Jesus' ghost. There are claims that ghosts can affect physical matter, produce tactile sensations, etc. - poltergeists, ectoplasm, etc. Maybe when Thomas put his hand into Jesus' ghostly wounds, the ghost of Jesus caused pressure to be felt on his hands, making him think he touched something physical? Maybe Jesus' ghost ate ghostly food? Or he made it look like he was eating real food, but was actually transporting it out the back window using his poltergeist powers?

I have not read that particular book, I shall consider doing so. But I've heard many arguments that the NT is reliable, and I have not been very impressed; I think many arguments try hard to look impressive on the surface, but look less so when you dig into them deeper

Historically speaking, the NT works are the most trustworthy ancient documents we have(many people will accept anything mentioned within that isn't miraculous). Also, having had experience with what many would call "ghosts" (actually had to be demonic in nature) I have a few things to say. 1 they have very limited contact with physical matter (usually like throwing something or moving something temporarily). 2 As far as I know, they do not have the capability to teleport anything other than themselves (being spirit in nature allows for this kind of movement). 3 They usually have a very limited place in which they can travel (sometimes the more powerful ones can travel further, but usually they are pretty limited). 4 They can't do anything that God won't allow, and that simply saying the name of Jesus is enough to make them leave (which goes to the Kingdom divided against itself, why would they want anyone to know about a simple word that can make them leave).

Also in response to your post about miracles. In my particular case, I had been given a surgery that is similar to trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, and after that point the doctors who had done this refused to treat me, and claimed that I was "psychosomatic". They sent me to a psychiatrist, and even the psychiatrist couldn't give me that diagnosis (these doctors were arrogant, and couldn't admit their mistakes). We were searching for doctors that would be willing to treat me, and we were going to head to the Mayo Clinic (I can't remember where that is). Considering that only a few doctors in the world know how to treat this disease, I would likely have received further mistreatment, and died, but I received a miraculous (but temporary) healing that I am sure saved my life. After a few months of remission, it came back (the disease is called RSD), and we started looking for a doctor that could actually correctly treat this disease. Which we did eventually find. By the time I actually got to receive treatments from him, I was in a wheelchair, and he was able to get me walking again. Many people with this disease end up committing suicide, or losing everything and dying anyway. So the miracle is twofold, miraculous healing, and finding one of the few doctors alive that knows how to treat this disease(God doesn't always need to work through things as amazing as parting the Red Sea, and they can still be called a miracle).
So, to recap, I wasn't receiving any kind of medical treatment at the time I was healed, and the treatment I had received had been the exact opposite of what is needed in order to effectively treat the disease. Yes, it came back, but if I hadn't been healed when I was, I am positive that I would have been killed by further mistreatment. I hope that helps set up a little more of the background of this particular miracle(no possible way for a treatment to be effective since I wasn't receiving any at the time).

[shunyadragon]

You're really claiming that miracles don't happen in today's world (no not stuff like Mary's image on some random object either, but answered prayers, healings etc.)? I know you would reject it as "anecdotal evidence", but I have personally experienced miracles, and what many would call "supernatural activity", and I know a great deal of people with similar experiences in both arenas. My own personal experience has to do with a miraculous healing(the miracle experience, not the "supernatural activity" one), and if it had not happened when it did, I wouldn't be here today. Also my mom worked at a hospital, where a baby had been declared dead, only after a little while of prayer, the baby came back to life, the doctors have no explanation either(this one was even on Unsolved Mysteries). Miracles happen far more often than people might think,

These claims remain anecdotal in nature, and you have nothing to document them.

. . . not to mention that life itself is a miracle, and is all around us(the laws of nature can't cause life by random chance, it just doesn't work that way, abiogenesis was disproved long ago).

I would like to see some scientific sources that support this claim. Random chance used here is an unfortunate uneducated layman's view, and has never played any causative role in natural events and process of evolution.

Please, provide scientific sources that support the notion that abiogenesis has been disproved. Problem here, nothing is proved nor disproved in science.

The Resurrection has far more historical basis than many ancient events, miraculous or not.

Like all anecdotal claims of the miraculous, the Resurrection has zero historical basis.

[Cerebrum123]

shunyadragon, I already knew that you would reject what I said as anecdotal evidence. The best evidence I could give you would be my medical records that show that I have RSD, and the knowledge that there is no cure, and a very slim possibility of remission, especially when you receive the treatments that I did. I would be able to show you that I no longer needed treatments. I need treatments now, but I was cured temporarily, and immediately after prayer.

Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis a long time ago, but I guess you didn't know that did you. Simple history. It wasn't called abiogenesis back then, but "spontaneous generation", but it was essentially the same thing. http://www.preservearticles.com/2012...is-theory.html
)
The rise of Christianity wouldn't have even been possible if they didn't have the evidence in support of the Resurrection. I refer you to the book (or if you want the condensed article go to http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose. ) "The Impossible Faith". This historical fact is the basis of Christianity, and everything in Christendom hinges on it.

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon, I already knew that you would reject what I said as anecdotal evidence. The best evidence I could give you would be my medical records that show that I have RSD, and the knowledge that there is no cure, and a very slim possibility of remission, especially when you receive the treatments that I did. I would be able to show you that I no longer needed treatments. I need treatments now, but I was cured temporarily, and immediately after prayer.

A slim possibility of remission or naturally cured individuals remain a documented possibility in recent medical history. The result is as predicted, only rare cases of remission or spontaneous cure are known to occur regardless of whether the claim of the miraculous is made or not.

The report of miraculous healings are no more numerous than those that normally known to occur in medical history, which is rare. Millions if not billions of cases are prayed for with no result. This the case of the claims made at Lourdes in France. The reported documented miraculous healings are no more common than what are known to occur naturally

Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis a long time ago, but I guess you didn't know that did you. Simple history. It wasn't called abiogenesis back then, but "spontaneous generation", but it was essentially the same thing. http://www.preservearticles.com/2012...is-theory.html

Again, nothing in science is proved and disproved.

This is the most foolish unscientific reference I have ever seen posted. It is ridiculously ignorant of science. Please post something from a peer reviewed journal to support your assertion. Nothing will result today if you boil junk in a flask than, and nothing will happen today nor at any time in history. Nothing in this experiment represented the basic components of life lknown to occur naturally in nature.
)

The rise of Christianity wouldn't have even been possible if they didn't have the evidence in support of the Resurrection. I refer you to the book (or if you want the condensed article go to http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose. ) "The Impossible Faith". This historical fact is the basis of Christianity, and everything in Christendom hinges on it.

Shows only that the believers believe in Resurrection.

[Cerebrum123]

A slim possibility of remission or naturally cured individuals remain a documented possibility in recent medical history. The result is as predicted, only rare cases of remission or spontaneous cure are known to occur regardless of whether the claim of the miraculous is made or not.



Again, nothing in science is proved and disproved.

This is the most foolish unscientific reference I have ever seen posted. It is ridiculously ignorant of science. Please post something from a peer reviewed journal to support your assertion. Nothing will result today if you boil junk in a flask than, and nothing will happen today nor at any time in history. Nothing in this experiment represented the basic components of life lknown to occur naturally in nature.
)



Shows only that the believers believe in Resurrection.

Only going to answer the first one right now, but I will get back to you on this later. shuny, when do people spontaneously get better from an illness when they have been treated with exactly would make the disease worse? What they did to me was similar to giving arsenic to a victim of poisoning (and by arsenic as well). Or maybe like putting gasoline on a fire. Or maybe sticking a nail in the eye of someone who has Glaucoma. Sorry shuny, but mistreatment of a disease never makes a person get better from said disease. Also I was not receiving any medical attention since they had done the procedure that made me worse. This means that they weren't even trying to undo the damage they had done.