I once investigated and prove to myself of a negative outside the Bible

[salvationfound]

Hey everyone,

In another thread Minnesota said this:

So unless you make the same crazy claims for some other work as you do the Bible, it is not necessary to raise the bar for that work.

Doesn't matter, they're my standards. And they are only applied to the Bible because the Bible is the only work for which these extraordinary claims are made.

It made me say to myself I said, "Self, have you ever encountered an
extraordinary claim? And if you have how did you respond to that claim?"
And I realized that yes indeed there was once an extraordinary claim that I
investigated.

Here is the interesting thing. It is an extraordinary claim that I bet at least
some of the non-believers accept.

You see before I was obsessed with Jesus I was obsessed with some other
extraordinary claim. The JFK assassination.

I had watched the movie JFK on video and the movie did make extraordinary
claims about who killed JFK. Was it the CIA, KGB, Mafia, american goverment?

So I investigated the claim for about 2 years I suppose. I must have read
dozens upon dozens of books. Read files, went through the Warren
Commission (man I'm starting to feel a little embarrassed).

And after two years what did I discover? Oswald acted alone.
Everything pointed to him.

So from time to time I have had people say to me, "It was a second
gunman."

So what is my response to this extraordinary claim is it, "EXTRAORDINARY
CLAIM REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE?"

No not at all. I run through my reasoning for coming to the conclusion that
Oswald acted alone (This is gonna be a short summary of 2 years of work
this thread isn't meant to prove that Oswald acted alone but only to show
how I respond to an extraordinary claim about the assassination.)

-Only credible witnesses at the time of the shooting are the ones who saw
Oswald appear at the Depository. All the other witnesses are unreliable.
-His gun which is connected to him was discovered and the bullets match
that gun.
-Failure Analysis shows that the bullet wounds line-up to Oswald and not
the grassy knoll.
-People ran immediately to the grassy knoll and saw nothing.
-Oswald's movements can easily be traced for a good portion of his adult
life. Analyzing his life reveals Oswald had no relations with any of the
suspects mentioned above.
-Oswald's actions before and after the assassination indicate his involvement.

and so on and so on. Really the only evidence supporting an extraordinary
claim of a second gunman is faulty, speculative and just plain wrong.

Now just one of these bits of evidence may not be enough but combined
together seemed very conclusive to me.
But whenever anybody asks me about my view I've never once said to
someone extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Instead I
analyzed all evidence and decided that it all leads to Oswald.

In other words I believe that I have proof of a negative. There was no
second gunman and I come to that conclusion not by setting a different
standard to an extraordinary claim but by looking at the evidence and seeing
where it points. Now people may disagree with my conclusions but I don't
see how anyone can say I didn't take an honest approach on the subject.

When it comes to the resurrection once again I look at what evidence we
have that majority of historians accept:

-We have a definitive dead body in Jesus.
-We have a tomb being found empty.
-We have his followers who originally were dismayed at his death beginning
to make a claim of having seen him resurrected.
-We have disbelievers in Paul and James who say they saw him.
-We have many of the followers being persecuted and some being killed.
-We have no other explanation from anyone as to what happened to the
body.
-We have no witnesses who make any other claim about Jesus after he died.

Now again just one of these bits of evidence may not be enough. But it is
the combination of the whole that convinces me of the resurrection.
All the evidence points to the resurrection. Now for the skeptic to say that
it requires extraordinary evidence means that they accept that all known
evidence points to the resurrection being true. They accept that the
resurrection passes the test used for all other historical events (If it didn't the
skeptics would focus all their attention on that rather than using ECREE.)

So because it passes the skeptic says that more evidence is needed than
what is mentioned above.

All I can say is that when I was confronted with an extraordinary claim I didn't
just dismiss it because of lack of extraordinary evidence. I examined any
evidence there was and came to a conclusion. I believe I used the same
method to come to both of my conclusions when confronted with an
extraordinary claim. disagree with my methods if you want. But I believe my
methods have helped me to discover truth.

[bandecoot]

Hey everyone,

In another thread Minnesota said this:



It made me say to myself I said, "Self, have you ever encountered an
extraordinary claim? And if you have how did you respond to that claim?"
And I realized that yes indeed there was once an extraordinary claim that I
investigated.

Here is the interesting thing. It is an extraordinary claim that I bet at least
some of the non-believers accept.

You see before I was obsessed with Jesus I was obsessed with some other
extraordinary claim. The JFK assassination.

I had watched the movie JFK on video and the movie did make extraordinary
claims about who killed JFK. Was it the CIA, KGB, Mafia, american goverment?

So I investigated the claim for about 2 years I suppose. I must have read
dozens upon dozens of books. Read files, went through the Warren
Commission (man I'm starting to feel a little embarrassed).

And after two years what did I discover? Oswald acted alone.
Everything pointed to him.

So from time to time I have had people say to me, "It was a second
gunman."

So what is my response to this extraordinary claim is it, "EXTRAORDINARY
CLAIM REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE?"

No not at all. I run through my reasoning for coming to the conclusion that
Oswald acted alone (This is gonna be a short summary of 2 years of work
this thread isn't meant to prove that Oswald acted alone but only to show
how I respond to an extraordinary claim about the assassination.)

-Only credible witnesses at the time of the shooting are the ones who saw
Oswald appear at the Depository. All the other witnesses are unreliable.
-His gun which is connected to him was discovered and the bullets match
that gun.
-Failure Analysis shows that the bullet wounds line-up to Oswald and not
the grassy knoll.
-People ran immediately to the grassy knoll and saw nothing.
-Oswald's movements can easily be traced for a good portion of his adult
life. Analyzing his life reveals Oswald had no relations with any of the
suspects mentioned above.
-Oswald's actions before and after the assassination indicate his involvement.

and so on and so on. Really the only evidence supporting an extraordinary
claim of a second gunman is faulty, speculative and just plain wrong.

Now just one of these bits of evidence may not be enough but combined
together seemed very conclusive to me.
But whenever anybody asks me about my view I've never once said to
someone extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Instead I
analyzed all evidence and decided that it all leads to Oswald.

In other words I believe that I have proof of a negative. There was no
second gunman and I come to that conclusion not by setting a different
standard to an extraordinary claim but by looking at the evidence and seeing
where it points. Now people may disagree with my conclusions but I don't
see how anyone can say I didn't take an honest approach on the subject.

When it comes to the resurrection once again I look at what evidence we
have that majority of historians accept:

-We have a definitive dead body in Jesus.
-We have a tomb being found empty.
-We have his followers who originally were dismayed at his death beginning
to make a claim of having seen him resurrected.
-We have disbelievers in Paul and James who say they saw him.
-We have many of the followers being persecuted and some being killed.
-We have no other explanation from anyone as to what happened to the
body.
-We have no witnesses who make any other claim about Jesus after he died.

Now again just one of these bits of evidence may not be enough. But it is
the combination of the whole that convinces me of the resurrection.
All the evidence points to the resurrection. Now for the skeptic to say that
it requires extraordinary evidence means that they accept that all known
evidence points to the resurrection being true. They accept that the
resurrection passes the test used for all other historical events (If it didn't the
skeptics would focus all their attention on that rather than using ECREE.)

So because it passes the skeptic says that more evidence is needed than
what is mentioned above.

All I can say is that when I was confronted with an extraordinary claim I didn't
just dismiss it because of lack of extraordinary evidence. I examined any
evidence there was and came to a conclusion. I believe I used the same
method to come to both of my conclusions when confronted with an
extraordinary claim. disagree with my methods if you want. But I believe my
methods have helped me to discover truth.

Sorry but what you call an extraordinary claim is not in fact one. It was a claim that another person fired at JFK. Thats a person not a ghost or a pixie. People can be detected through evidence like forensics, that sort of thing. That JFK thing is an ordinary claim that was debunked by ordinary evidence.

If it had been a claim that a demon transported a drunken rock star thru a magic portal in time and space and then used him to be oswald and then teleported to the grassy knoll to fire a magic guided bullet that would overshoot JFK and turn and come back to hit him on a trajectory that looked like the oswald analog had shot him.

Now that would be an extaordinary claim! ( also a very good book by Mick Farren BTW )

Much like the idea that dead people can get up after a few days in the tomb.

[Mountain Man]

All the evidence points to the resurrection. Now for the skeptic to say that
it requires extraordinary evidence means that they accept that all known
evidence points to the resurrection being true. They accept that the
resurrection passes the test used for all other historical events (If it didn't the
skeptics would focus all their attention on that rather than using ECREE.)

This is really it in a nutshell. ECREE is nothing more than a stubborn refusal to follow the chain of evidence to its logical conclussion.

[jason]

This is really it in a nutshell. ECREE is nothing more than a stubborn refusal to follow the chain evidence to its logical conclussion.

Be fair. What do you want them to be reasonable or something ?

Then how could they keep sleeping with their girlfriend and cheating on their taxes ?

Jason

[Ryokan]

Be fair. What do you want them to be reasonable or something ?

Then how could they keep sleeping with their girlfriend and cheating on their taxes ?

Jason

Becoming a mod has just made you into a troll.

[jason]

Becoming a mod has just made you into a troll.

I've been a troll all along

But seriously. Given the sort of stupidity from the likes of Johnny Skeptic and others, I think my observation is entirely reasonable.

They are the ones proposing all sorts of utterly ridiculous nonsense in an effort to find and alternative. Why ?

Jason

[Ryokan]

I've been a troll all along

But seriously. Given the sort of stupidity from the likes of Johnny Skeptic and others, I think my observation is entirely reasonable.

Its a blanket statement, and unfair to the majority of unbleievers, is all.

They are the ones proposing all sorts of utterly ridiculous nonsense in an effort to find and alternative. Why ?

Jason

I find ECREE a weak arguement, too, but no need to attack people personally.

[shunyadragon]

All I can say is that when I was confronted with an extraordinary claim I didn't just dismiss it because of lack of extraordinary evidence. I examined any evidence there was and came to a conclusion. I believe I used the same method to come to both of my conclusions when confronted with an extraordinary claim. disagree with my methods if you want. But I believe my methods have helped me to discover truth.

You were not dealing with extraordinary or supernatural claims involving the JFK assasination. You are evaluating very ordinary contemporary evidence of well documented events in modern history.

The resurrection claim is one one who rises from the dead and appears to people. If JFK or Qswald were claimed to have done that, than you would be investigating rather extraordinary claims.

I personallly would not need exrtaordinary evidence for the resurrection claim. I would consider contemporary recorded testimony from sources other than the Bible, manuscripts contemporary to the lives of the disciples would be great. Evidence for the greatest earthquake ever to be experienced in human history and possibly the many dead and famous saints running around Jeruselum, would be of some assistence in giving credibility to the documentation and dredibility to the acceptance of a literal understanding of the Bible accounts.

[mentored1]

When it comes to the resurrection once again I look at what evidence we
have that majority of historians accept:

-We have a definitive dead body in Jesus.
-We have a tomb being found empty.
-We have his followers who originally were dismayed at his death beginning
to make a claim of having seen him resurrected.
-We have disbelievers in Paul and James who say they saw him.
-We have many of the followers being persecuted and some being killed.
-We have no other explanation from anyone as to what happened to the
body.
-We have no witnesses who make any other claim about Jesus after he died.

Now again just one of these bits of evidence may not be enough. But it is
the combination of the whole that convinces me of the resurrection.
All the evidence points to the resurrection. Now for the skeptic to say that
it requires extraordinary evidence means that they accept that all known
evidence points to the resurrection being true. They accept that the
resurrection passes the test used for all other historical events (If it didn't the
skeptics would focus all their attention on that rather than using ECREE.)

So because it passes the skeptic says that more evidence is needed than
what is mentioned above.

All I can say is that when I was confronted with an extraordinary claim I didn't
just dismiss it because of lack of extraordinary evidence. I examined any
evidence there was and came to a conclusion. I believe I used the same
method to come to both of my conclusions when confronted with an
extraordinary claim. disagree with my methods if you want. But I believe my
methods have helped me to discover truth.

I've read a few works that seem to discuss what you've discussed above verbatim. There are a few issues that I must raise, however. The accounts surrounding Christ's death and resurrection are often verified in a circular fashion: historians who support its validity often use the bible or books that discuss the bible to support the event - circular reasoning has its amusements but proving something is not one of them. Circular reason is often cited as a fault of evolutionary science but Creationists - so it should not be valid at all when discussing the truth of such an amazing event as the resurrection.

Another point we need to clarify in such a discussion is the nature of the Bible: not everyone accepts it as a historical record. The Gnostics did not view it, by and large, as historical but allegorical, mythical. Granted they were not given canonical status in their views but with the historical development of the church and the many influences and forces surrounding its development I find the determination of which interpretation is proper to be dubious. The "facts" surrounding a great number of other faiths are disputed - sometimes vehemently by Christians - and defenders of those faiths come forward with many of the same elements of 'proof' as presented for the resurrection (such as in this thread). Was Mohammed a raider and brigand? Probably, but devoted Muslims have their reasons to convince you otherwise - and why is their faith less valid that that of Biblical faith if the burden of proof is of the same nature?

There was a mention in this thread that reason why people don't want to follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion is because they want to continue sleeping with the girlfriend and cheating on their taxes - aside from the fact that reason and logic play no part in determining the validity of faith (and if it did then why have faith in something you can prove logically) the reasons of sin and guilt are irrelevant. Guilt is a powerful tool and an offense against one's deity is a powerful mechanism of guilt - tapping into the roots of the human psyche doesn't constitute a legitimate reason for a lack of faith.

I've heard the argument that people who don't believe do so to avoid responsibility for sin and the consequences of it: the concept of sin is hard to nail down is it not? If each person is individually responsible for God for their sins and their sin can only be understood in a personal way in relation to God how then can any one of us propose to know who is or is not guilty before God? That is quite a leap of presumption. I have found it hard to explain to people how the sin of one man, Adam, has caused them to fall from grace with God. Does inheriting a propensity for sin make you guilty of it? Whether you believe so or not, attempting to explain it to someone who is not inclined to faith is a difficult task.

In the attempts and searches to prove God exists - numerous books and theological works fall into this hunt - isn't the basic premise of God's existence denied? Is there not an admonition by Paul that faith is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hoped for? If you prove the existence of God why then do you hope in something you have substantiated, or have faith in something you have proven to seen?

Do not take my ramblings as an argument or a constest against your faith - I truly do not know and doubt any human every can; hence the miracle of faith: believing what you cannot every know. The Greeks called faith the divine madness - the absurd concept of believing and trusting in the impossibility of eternity for the temporal. It is indeed miraculous and as such proof ought not to exist lest the miraculous becomes the ordinary.

[BenK]

Is there any sort of systematic approach to what constitutes an 'extraordinary' claim, or what constitutes 'extraordinary' evidence, or is it simply a matter of fiat; 'I consider X and constitutes an "extraordinary" claim, and consider no evidence constitutes "extraordinary" evidence, therefore claim X is false'?

[Ryokan]

I personallly would not need exrtaordinary evidence for the resurrection claim. I would consider contemporary recorded testimony from sources other than the Bible, manuscripts contemporary to the lives of the disciples would be great. Evidence for the greatest earthquake ever to be experienced in human history and possibly the many dead and famous saints running around Jeruselum, would be of some assistence in giving credibility to the documentation and dredibility to the acceptance of a literal understanding of the Bible accounts.

Exactly.

[Ryokan]

BenK, I think its like the definition of pornography "You know it when you see it."

[BenK]

The accounts surrounding Christ's death and resurrection are often verified in a circular fashion: historians who support its validity often use the bible or books that discuss the bible to support the event - circular reasoning has its amusements but proving something is not one of them.

I'm sorry, I've missed something here. How is using a contemporary (or very nearly contemporary) text to support a historical claim a 'circular argument'? Using the Bible to support a claim of Biblical innerancy is circular; using the Bible to support historical claims is straightforward history. We may (as we may with any historical text) question the reliability of the New Testament as a source; in no sense does this involve asserting that historical claims based on the text are circular.

The "facts" surrounding a great number of other faiths are disputed - sometimes vehemently by Christians - and defenders of those faiths come forward with many of the same elements of 'proof' as presented for the resurrection (such as in this thread). Was Mohammed a raider and brigand? Probably, but devoted Muslims have their reasons to convince you otherwise - and why is their faith less valid that that of Biblical faith if the burden of proof is of the same nature?

An argument such as this needs to be grounded in specific examples. Just because people argue doesn't mean that some of them aren't right. Just because Christians defend Christianity and Muslims defend Islam doesn't automatically mean that both religions are equally true.

On the other hand, I agree with some of the sentiment of what you are saying; intellectual humility is a virtue, courtesy is nescessary for any constructive discussion, and simply ridiculing someone's honest belief is always counterproductive. Moreover, I consider, what if the Muslims are right and Christians are wrong? How would I want Allah to judge me and my false belief? Wouldn't I want him to remember that I believed what I thought was true, and submitted to God in the way I thought was right? I hope and pray, therefore, that the Living God of heaven will judge all men with compassion. And Christ himself promised that all who ask will receive, and that all who seek will find, and that to all those who knock, the door will be opened.

Do not take my ramblings as an argument or a constest against your faith - I truly do not know and doubt any human every can; hence the miracle of faith: believing what you cannot every know. The Greeks called faith the divine madness - the absurd concept of believing and trusting in the impossibility of eternity for the temporal.

Again, I agree in a sense; we cannot, on the basis of our own reason alone, have absolute certainty of God's existence. But it is also true that, on the basis of reason alone, we cannot have absolute certainty of our own existence, nor certainty about the existence of anything else. For reason will only lead us from a premise to a conclusion; in the absence of truth reason is silent. Faith is required to believe in God; faith is also required to get up in the morning. The simple agnostic doubts God alone; a more philosophical agnostic doubts the universe; a true agnostic doubts himself - humility by which he enters into the favor of God. The goddess told Socrates that he was the wisest of men; he could not believe it until he realised that he alone of men perceived his own ignorance.

The Universe is, indeed, a mystery, like a story with a surprise ending. The Gospel is that it is a happy ending.

[BenK]

I personallly would not need exrtaordinary evidence for the resurrection claim. I would consider contemporary recorded testimony from sources other than the Bible, manuscripts contemporary to the lives of the disciples would be great. Evidence for the greatest earthquake ever to be experienced in human history and possibly the many dead and famous saints running around Jeruselum, would be of some assistence in giving credibility to the documentation and dredibility to the acceptance of a literal understanding of the Bible accounts.

Firstly, I'm not aware of any claim regarding the 'greatest earthquake of human history.' Have I overlooked this somewhere obvious?

Secondly, the disqualification of the bible as a text seems simply to be begging the question. Will we disqualify evidence for Christ's death and ressurection simply becuase it supports the proposition?

Thirdly, arguing from a lack of textual supports (ignoring, for the sake of argument, the actual existence of non-biblical textual references to early chrisianity) is highly problematic; just how many first century Judean texts to we have? What proportion of all first century Judean texts does this comprise? If (as I strongly suspect) only a minute fraction of all first century texts survive, can we really assume that any event perceived by later generations as historically important would be mentioned in the surviving texts?

[BenK]

BenK, I think its like the definition of pornography "You know it when you see it."

Surely this is enormously problematic for a proposed rule of knowledge. If the 'extraordinariness' of a claim is purely based on subjective assessment, won't ECREE simply boil down to 'any claim which is difficult to reconcile with my own worldview I reject a priori'?