warcraft3:
Hey there John Powell....

Interesting thread...

POWELL:
Hey there, Soldier.

POWELL:
So here are my questions to the believers.

Q1. How do you avoid committing the fallacy of special pleading when you apply the extraordinary claims principle to claims that are NOT in your holy book, but you don't apply it nearly as rigorously to the claims in your own holy book?

warcraft3:
As far as specific miracles go......yes I am biased toward those that are consistant with my own belief system and thus with the corresponding "holy book" I believe.

POWELL:
That's how the criterion is supposed to work. Those claims which are more in line with your understanding of reality generally need less evidence to win your belief than claims which violate your understanding of reality.

The problem I see is that the believability of similar claim "X did Y" changes dramatically depending upon whether the claim is found in your holy book or if it is not.

For example, according to Tacitus, by the power of the God Serapis, Emperor Vespasian cured one man of blindness and cured another man of a bad hand.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/philo/talltales.html

Tacitus

Histories 4.81.

In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feel the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

POWELL:
Do you believe this event probably happened as Tacitus claimed?

I suspect not, but that's for you to say.

On the other hand, if I were to say that according to the Bible, by the power of the God Yahweh, Jesus Christ cured one man of blindness and cured another man of a bad hand then you would likely believe those events almost certainly happened if you read them for yourself in the Bible.

warcraft3:
For me personally it comes down to the fact that I believe that Christian apologists have made the best argument for their case compared to what Ive seen from other belief systems. Especially when it comes to the New Testament and Christ specifically.

POWELL:
The question is not whether the non-extraordinary elements of the Jesus story likely happened. Most persons of all religious positions, even atheists, believe that there was a historical Jesus. The question is whether the extraordinary elements, the miracles, should be believed based on the available evidence.

When I was a believing Mormon then I believed similarly about the Mormon position that you do about the Christian position. There is some difference between us because I suspect that you are better read in anti-Christian literature than I was in anti-Mormon literature.

warcraft3:
And since they (they meaning Christ and the disciples) seemed to accept the Old Testament I guess I am putting faith in their accpetance of it. So perhaps I am guilty to an extent of this fallacy, although Im not sure how anyone could avoid it since its based on a personal bias.

POWELL:
The extraordinary principle does not speak directly to bias. It merely implies that, given your bias, what appears to be more out of the ordinary should have better evidence to justify you believing it than claims that appear more ordinary.

warcraft3:
Whether extrodinary or not we all tend to more easily believe or accept those things that line up with our personal biases.

POWELL:
As we should to be rational.

POWELL:
Q2. Shouldn't you apply the extraordinary claims principle a lot more consistently like skeptics more often do?

warcraft3:
Perhaps.

I would say that I am very skeptical of any new miracle claims, and I only believe in miracles in general because I believe I have personally witnessed a few real life miracles.

That probably biases me to more easily believe miracles both in general and specifically.

POWELL:
That makes sense.

What do you make of the situation that in order for me to persuade you to believe with near certainty that "X did Y" where Y is an extraordinary thing then all I need to do is give you the Biblical passage. However, if it's not in the Bible then I would need to supply you with a lot more evidence than the mere claim for you to believe it probably happened?

For example, do you believe that Jesus during His ministry probably moved a mountain? I'm not asking if you think it's reasonably POSSIBLE that Jesus did that, but do you believe that it's PROBABLY the case that Jesus did that?

I suspect that you don't believe that because it's not claimed that He did so.

However, what if there were words in the Bible that claimed that Jesus moved a mountain? Wouldn't you then believe it probably happened? Apparently, all a Gospel writer or scribe had to do was add a few false lines claiming that Jesus moved a mountain and you would believe it actually happened.

POWELL:
Q3. If the disciples didn't believe the women until they saw with their own eyes and felt with their own hands and if Thomas didn't believe his fellow disciples until he could do the same, then why should we be expected to believe in the resurrection of Jesus based on evidence less extraordinary than that?

John Powell

warcraft3:
Thats a good question and I think that verse illustrates that God is not opposed to skepticism.

I would say you should not believe based solely on one piece of evidence or based solely on an argument.

POWELL:
I don't understand. If you have a sound deductive argument, what better evidence could there be?

warcraft3:
The diciples already believed in Jesus to some extent...so the experience of seeing Christ physically was the final piece of the puzzle.

POWELL:
But, Russ, would the disciples, including Thomas, have believed in the resurrection without seeing and feeling Jesus personally? They had the testimony of those who claimed to have seen and felt. They had the alleged words of the angels. Isn't that about all we have?

warcraft3:
Perhaps some people really do need to see such a thing to believe (and there have been claims made by some people that they did see such a thing before becoming a believer)...while for others the "experience" may be something different than a physical manifestation of the risen Christ.

POWELL:
Do you believe those people who claimed such experiences really saw and touched Jesus or do you think it was more likely a dream / hallucination / mistake?

If you believe them then why don't you believe people like Joseph Smith and other Mormon prophets who have made similar claims?

warcraft3:
The "extraordinary" evidence may differ from person to person.

Russ

POWELL:
Right.

My criticism is that the quality and quantity of evidence that a believer requires to justify believing things claimed in their holy book seems way too different from the quality and quantity of evidence they require for similar claims which don't happen to be included in the pages of their holy book.

If Moses had neglected to write about the talking ass aspect of Balaam's experience in the Bible then most Christians today would likely NOT believe that Balaam's ass spoke even if it was included in non-canonical writings of Moses.

John Powell

POWELL:
So here are my questions to the believers.

Q1. How do you avoid committing the fallacy of special pleading when you apply the extraordinary claims principle to claims that are NOT in your holy book, but you don't apply it nearly as rigorously to the claims in your own holy book?

JASON:
Who said all miracles are rejected out of hand ? I believe the resurrection precisely because it is the best fit to the available evidence.

POWELL:
I did not say or clearly imply that you reject all miracles out of hand. What I meant to imply is that you require MUCH less evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim if it happens to be in your holy book than a similar claim that does not. I don't see the justification for this HUGE difference in methodology.

Here's the reasoning as I see it:

1. Extraordinary claim, EC.
2. Is EC recorded in the Bible?
3. Yes. Then no further evidence is required.
4. No. Then a lot more evidence is required.

Why don't you think that other possibilities like dreams / hallucinations / and mistakes which were made to sound more physical are a better fit to the evidence?

You probably believe that Joseph Smith either dreamed / hallucinated / or was mistaken about his claims, yet he died rather than deny them. You realize the same is true of others like David Koresh. So, what makes you think that the writers of the Bible were immune to such human patterns of behavior? Because they had halos above their heads?

JASON:
I don't believe Joe Smith had Golden Plates written in Reformed Egyptian in part because there is no evidence at all such a language exists, and i have good reason from modern genetic evidence to reject the claims of the book of moron even if I concede the existence of Golden Plates.

POWELL:
But, Jason, there are 11 witnesses who claim to have seen the golden plates with their own eyes and seen the curious markings thereon. Three of those also heard God affirm the truth. These are irrefutably historical persons, not ancient persons who reasonably may have been fictional characters.

http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

OLIVER COWDERY
DAVID WHITMER
MARTIN HARRIS

POWELL:
Below is the testimony of the eight witnesses who didn't see the angel or hear the voice of the Lord, but did see the plates.

http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

CHRISTIAN WHITMER
JACOB WHITMER
PETER WHITMER, JUN.
JOHN WHITMER
HIRAM PAGE
JOSEPH SMITH, SEN.
HYRUM SMITH
SAMUEL H. SMITH

POWELL:
Does the Bible have anything comparable to this attestation?

As for scientific refutation, there's quite a bit of that in reference to the Bible too. For example, it is the scientific consensus that mankind and the Earth are a lot older than what the Bible implies and that there was no universal flood as the Bible implies.

JASON:
Mohammed miracles turn up in writings several hundred years after his life time, just as you would expect from inventions (completly unlike the story of the resurrection), but even if it was attested to the haddith, what exactly is the problem ? So mohammed performed a miracle so what ?

POWELL:
What is your reference for that "several hundred years" claim?

Do you believe that probably the Moon split in two as the Muslim holy books claim?

If the Bible were to claim something similar wouldn't you believe it almost certainly happened without needing anything besides the Bible's say-so as justification?

POWELL:
Q2. Shouldn't you apply the extraordinary claims principle a lot more consistently like skeptics more often do?

JASON:
In my experience skeptics apply it just as selectivly as you claim christians do.

POWELL:
Please elaborate. Examples would be helpful. I'm doubtful, but somewhat open to the possibility.

POWELL:
Q3. If the disciples didn't believe the women until they saw with their own eyes and felt with their own hands and if Thomas didn't believe his fellow disciples until he could do the same, then why should we be expected to believe in the resurrection of Jesus based on evidence less extraordinary than that?

JASON:
You do realise that this statement/challenge implies that the resurrection happened.

POWELL:
Actually it doesn't since I put "if's" in there. However, I'm not averse to conceding that the resurrection happened, for the sake of argument, if that's needed in part of the discussion.

JASON:
But why shouldn't you trust the word of a reliable eye witness ?

Jason

POWELL:
Because the claim is so extraordinary. If the claim were more ordinary like "I saw and touched Jesus in the garden" while Jesus was still alive then one could be justified in believing based on the mere claim. However, if Jesus was supposed to be dead in the tomb at the time then you should require a lot more evidence than the person's mere say-so. The disciples apparently understood this. Do you?

John Powell

Originally posted by sandlewood

Not to hijack this thread and turn it into a “resurrection” thread, but. . .

POWELL:
Since the extraordinary claims rebuttal is so often used in connection with the resurrection claim, I expect some of this. I encourage you to proceed.

SANDLEWOOD:
The objective evidence we have is that humans do not come back to life after being dead three days. . .

POWELL:
Jesus allegedly was only dead for about 1 1/2 days or two nights and one day. That does not make a significant difference in your claim, but it does help in dealing with the question of consistency in the New Testament claims concerning the length of time Jesus was in the tomb.

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

I don't see the justification for this HUGE difference in methodology.

Who said I did that ?

Why don't you think that other possibilities like dreams / hallucinations / and mistakes which were made to sound more physical are a better fit to the evidence?

Lots of reasons. Most notably in terms of the resurrection is that a bodily resurrection in the middle of time was not anybodies expectation at the time.

Also the bodily resurrection is a very early claim by christians, so not tacked on later.

You probably believe that Joseph Smith either dreamed / hallucinated / or was mistaken about his claims, yet he died rather than deny them.

Back up. Joe Smith was killed in a botched jail break. It is not legitimate to claim "He died rather than deny them".

And no I don't think he dreamed or hallicinated them.

But, Jason, there are 11 witnesses who claim to have seen the golden plates with their own eyes and seen the curious markings thereon. Three of those also heard God affirm the truth.

So what ? The BoM has made a testable historic claim that has been falsified. I also note that you are not mentioning that these witnesses were later chucked out of the church. Same is not true for the disciples.

These are irrefutably historical persons, not ancient persons who reasonably may have been fictional characters.

As for scientific refutation, there's quite a bit of that in reference to the Bible too. For example, it is the scientific consensus that mankind and the Earth are a lot older than what the Bible implies and that there was no universal flood as the Bible implies.

Pathetic straw man as I am not a YEC Is that the best you can do ?

Do you believe that probably the Moon split in two as the Muslim holy books claim?

Don't confuse an observation with an event. It is entirely possible they witnessed something that they took to be the moon splitting in two. That is not the same as the moon actually splitting in two.

If the Bible were to claim something similar wouldn't you believe it almost certainly happened without needing anything besides the Bible's say-so as justification?

Depends on the claim.

Please elaborate. Examples would be helpful. I'm doubtful, but somewhat open to the possibility.

Are you at all skeptical of darwin ?

Jason

I'll admit to not having read this thread very closely but one objection I have to the "Extraordinary claims" mantra is the inabilitiy to qualify or quantify what is meant by "extraordinary", especially in terms of evidence. Is it meant a larger amount of evidence, a different kind of evidence etc.? Below is a relevant link on this topic.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm

CHSALVIA:
Excellent post John. I agree that this inconsistency is often baffling. However, in corresponding with many Christians on this forum I have found that many Christians do not automatically reject miracle reports from competing faiths or secular historical sources as false. They realize this would be extremely inconsistent, especially because most of their arguments in favor of the Resurrection try to cast the skeptics in an inconsistent light by asking such questions as "why do you reject the Gospels but accept secular history?" (An argument which of course ignores the extraordinary aspect of the account in question.)

POWELL:
Thanks for that plug.

Apparently, the skeptical arguments have pressured Christian apologists to take a more accepting position towards non-Biblical miracles like the apologetic arguments have pressured strong atheists to plead a weaker stance concerning the existence of God.

So, I am not claiming that Christians reject non-Biblical miracles out of hand, but that they are more likely to accept as ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE an extraordinary claim in the Bible on the mere say-so of the Bible than they are to accept as PROBABLY true a similar, but non-Biblical, extraordinary claim on the mere say-so of a non-Biblical source. Using numbers: if the extraordinary claim is in the Bible then it's probably true with about 99% confidence. However, if a similar extraordinary claim is not in the Bible, but in some other holy book, then it's probably false (i.e. less than 50% confidence that it's true).

That seems to be unacceptably inconsistent to me.

CHSALVIA:
However, I believe that many Christians are aware of the inconsistency in rejecting competing miracle claims, and so they adopt a convenient position of agnosticism towards these reports, or else they accept them if the attestation is similar enough to the NT. Apparently not all Christians are bothered by the fact that non-Jewish/Christian miracles may have occurred throughout history. Christians can simply interpret these unbiblical miracles in a Christian framework by, e.g., assuming they were done under the influence of Satanic powers or something.

POWELL:
Right. Even before I heard about the extraordinary claims rebuttal, as a believing Mormon, I was willing to allow for miracles by Satan.

CHSALVIA:
Of course, a miracle report that has a direct bearing on the truth of a certain religion, like the incident you cited in the Hadith, may be a bit more of a problem for Christians since they also claim that the Resurrection has a direct bearing on the truth of Christianity. So we have a report saying Jesus rose from the dead, and a report saying Muhammed split the moon in half. Both of these are impressive, and if true, would probably point to the truth of Christianity or Islam respectively. But in this case, I suppose Christians would argue that the Resurrection has better attestation, so it trumps the claim in the Hadith/Q’ran. Muslims would argue otherwise, of course.

POWELL:
Right. Since the "golden plates" claim seems to be better attested than either of those claims, perhaps it's one that will better serve my needs.

John Powell

CHSALVIA:
Please...you skeptics are so inconsistent. The best explanation for that photo is that Mr. Ed really was on a surfboard. I'm starting a Mr. Ed Apologetics Website soon, where all of your Anti-Mr. Ed arguments will be soundly debunked.

POWELL:
That could be a fruitful skeptical response, Chsalvia. It's like the IPU.

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

Here's the reasoning as I see it:

1. Extraordinary claim, EC.
2. Is EC recorded in the Bible?
3. Yes. Then no further evidence is required.
4. No. Then a lot more evidence is required.

You forgot this:

1. Ignorant, Ridiculous, ONtologically Incoherent Claim, IRONIC,
2. Is IRONIC recorded in the Bible?
3. Yes. Invent a new pseudo-science to bolster this IRONIC claim (ie. flood geology, Intelligent Design, Creation Research, Special Relativity, Demon Possession Psychaiatrists, etc)
4. Yes, but now the whole world now pretty much agrees (ie. flat earth, earth with corners, earth centered universe), finally discard after much foot dragging...
5. No. No new pseudo-science is needed.

LGM
...I myself have am working on my degree in "Pre-Adamite" anthropology...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../i4/humans.asp

Originally posted by btboy500

I'll admit to not having read this thread very closely but one objection I have to the "Extraordinary claims" mantra is the inabilitiy to qualify or quantify what they mean by "extraordinary", especially in terms of evidence. Is it meant a larger amount of evidence, a different kind of evidence etc.? Below is a relevant link on this topic.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm

Thanks btboy500. Good article.

It does pose a good question. What would qualify as evidence for the resurrection and why doesn't the current evidence qualify ?

Jason

Originally posted by John Powell

So, I am not claiming that Christians reject non-Biblical miracles out of hand, but that they are more likely to accept as ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE an extraordinary claim in the Bible on the mere say-so of the Bible than they are to accept as PROBABLY true a similar, but non-Biblical, extraordinary claim on the mere say-so of a non-Biblical source. Using numbers: if the extraordinary claim is in the Bible then it's probably true with about 99% confidence. However, if a similar extraordinary claim is not in the Bible, but in some other holy book, then it's probably false (i.e. less than 50% confidence that it's true).

That seems to be unacceptably inconsistent to me.

Actually it isn't if you think about it a bit harder.

If you have a document that makes an "extraordinary" truth claim that turns out to be true then you are inclined to trust its other truth claims.

If you have a document that make a claim that turns out to be false then there is less reason to trust its other truth claims.

Not inconsistent at all.

Jason

Originally posted by jason

Actually it isn't if you think about it a bit harder.

If you have a document that makes an "extraordinary" truth claim that turns out to be true then you are inclined to trust its other truth claims.

If you have a document that make a claim that turns out to be false then there is less reason to trust its other truth claims.

Not inconsistent at all.

Jason

The statement that 'an extraudinary truth claim that turns out to be true vs. one that turns out to be false brings out more questions than it answers. Please provide an example for each and where the 'extraordinary evidence' succeeds for one and fails for the other.

Originally posted by btboy500

I'll admit to not having read this thread very closely but one objection I have to the "Extraordinary claims" mantra is the inabilitiy to qualify or quantify what is meant by "extraordinary", especially in terms of evidence. Is it meant a larger amount of evidence, a different kind of evidence etc.? Below is a relevant link on this topic.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm

This is an excellent point. However, while you have focused on "extraordinary" as it pertains to evidence, I believe it is equally true of "extraordinary" as it applies to the claims themselves. Typically, when you ask such a person what they mean by
"extraordinary", they'll say something like:

"Do I really have to spell it out for you? You know... stuff like gods, ghosts, the supernatural, the paranormal, ESP, aliens, etc - extraordinary stuff."

But that's not a definition of "extraordinary" - that's a list of things that the person in question considers extraordinary. When the same person claims "I don't believe in gods because that would be an extraordinary claim", this amounts to a circular claim - because "gods and stuff" was the very definition of extraordinary that they offered in the first place.

John, for your accusation of inconsistency to hold, you must first provide a solid, objective definition of what you mean by "extraordinary claim". Without this definition, the ECREE argument itself reduces to a form of special pleading: "I don't believe X because it's an extraordinary claim. Why do I think that it's extraordinary? Because I just do..."

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The statement that 'an extraudinary truth claim that turns out to be true vs. one that turns out to be false brings out more questions than it answers. Please provide an example for each and where the 'extraordinary evidence' succeeds for one and fails for the other.

The resurrection in the Bible vs The origins of American Indians in the BoM.

Jason

POWELL:
I did not say or clearly imply that you reject all miracles out of hand. What I meant to imply is that you require MUCH less evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim if it happens to be in your holy book than a similar claim that does not. I don't see the justification for this HUGE difference in methodology.

JASON:
Who said I did that ?

POWELL:
It looks like I did, but I meant to say that most Christians do it. Do you deny that you do it?

Please consider the example I gave to Russ warcraft3.

Do you believe that Jesus probably did or did not move a mountain during His ministry? I'm not asking if you think it's reasonably POSSIBLE, but whether it actually happened.

If the Bible happened to claim that Jesus moved a mountain during His ministry would you likely believe it with very high confidence?

What if the Book of Mormon claimed that one of its prophets moved a mountain? Wouldn't you believe that it probably did not happen?

POWELL:
Why don't you think that other possibilities like dreams / hallucinations / and mistakes which were made to sound more physical are a better fit to the evidence?

JASON:
Lots of reasons. Most notably in terms of the resurrection is that a bodily resurrection in the middle of time was not anybodies expectation at the time.

POWELL:
Wasn't it prophesied in the Old Testament?

Scripture Verse:

Hosea 6: 2
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

POWELL:
Didn't Paul use scriptures like Hosea to know how long Jesus was supposed to be dead?

Scripture Verse:

1 Cor 15:
4 . . . and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

JASON:
Also the bodily resurrection is a very early claim by christians, so not tacked on later.

POWELL:
So, probably not tacked on hundreds of years later. However, it apparently could have reasonably been tacked on years or decades later.

POWELL:
You probably believe that Joseph Smith either dreamed / hallucinated / or was mistaken about his claims, yet he died rather than deny them.

JASON:
Back up. Joe Smith was killed in a botched jail break. It is not legitimate to claim "He died rather than deny them".

POWELL:
You mean the mob coincidentally arrived at the same time as the planned jail break?

JASON:
And no I don't think he dreamed or hallicinated them.

POWELL:
So, you think Joseph Smith just made it up. Perhaps you think that Mohammed made up his stuff too.

If Joseph Smith could make up things like that (or dream or hallucinate them) and deceive millions of modern Mormons and Mohammed could make up things like that or dream or hallucinate them and deceive hundreds of millions of modern Muslims then why don't you think the early writers of the New Testament could have made up or dreamed or hallucinated things like that and deceive hundreds of millions of modern Christians? Because the Christian saints had halos over their heads?

POWELL:
But, Jason, there are 11 witnesses who claim to have seen the golden plates with their own eyes and seen the curious markings thereon. Three of those also heard God affirm the truth.

JASON:
So what ? The BoM has made a testable historic claim that has been falsified. I also note that you are not mentioning that these witnesses were later chucked out of the church. Same is not true for the disciples.

POWELL:
What testable historic claim are you referring to?

Didn't Judas betray Jesus and lose his position? So, why is it so hard for you to accept that modern believers might do similarly?

POWELL:
These are irrefutably historical persons, not ancient persons who reasonably may have been fictional characters.

POWELL:
That's right. The Biblical eye-witnesses aren't nearly as reliably identified as the 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon. For all we know, people like Mary M never lived, but was made up in the mind of Mark.

POWELL:
As for scientific refutation, there's quite a bit of that in reference to the Bible too. For example, it is the scientific consensus that mankind and the Earth are a lot older than what the Bible implies and that there was no universal flood as the Bible implies.

JASON:
Pathetic straw man as I am not a YEC Is that the best you can do ?

POWELL:
Then what you have apparently done, Jason, is interpreted the Bible differently than what the Bible seems to imply. Why can't Mormons do the same with respect to the Book of Mormon?

Let me pick another Biblical problem for you, then. Apparently according to Luke, Nazareth was a sufficiently large community to have a synagogue, yet it was built on a mountain. However, the part of modern Nazareth that is claimed today to be that 1st century home of Jesus is not built on a mountain or a hill but next to a hill and does not appear to have been a community at all that far back in time, but merely a burial location.

Apparently, Mark thought Jesus was supposed to be from a place called Nazareth so he made it up. Sometime later a place picked up the name.

POWELL:
Do you believe that probably the Moon split in two as the Muslim holy books claim?

JASON:
Don't confuse an observation with an event. It is entirely possible they witnessed something that they took to be the moon splitting in two. That is not the same as the moon actually splitting in two.

POWELL:
I see. Then apparently you don't believe the moon really split in two as claimed, but that they may have seen something that led them to believe it. In your opinion, it was a mistaken observation.

In that case, why don't you think the disciples may have hallucinated / dreamed / been mistaken about the resurrection of Jesus?

POWELL:
If the Bible were to claim something similar wouldn't you believe it almost certainly happened without needing anything besides the Bible's say-so as justification?

JASON:
Depends on the claim.

POWELL:
That the sun stopped its apparent westward motion across the sky. Do you believe it really happened?

POWELL:
Please elaborate. Examples would be helpful. I'm doubtful, but somewhat open to the possibility.

JASON:
Are you at all skeptical of darwin ?

Jason

POWELL:
I accept evolution as taught by modern biologists as the best explanation for the data. What specific issue concerning Darwin are you thinking of?

John Powell

BTBOY500:
I'll admit to not having read this thread very closely but one objection I have to the "Extraordinary claims" mantra is the inabilitiy to qualify or quantify what they mean by "extraordinary", especially in terms of evidence. Is it meant a larger amount of evidence, a different kind of evidence etc.?

POWELL:
It means better evidence. That could be improved quality and/or quantity.

How much evidence is required to justify belief differs somewhat between persons. What the extraordinary criterion implies is that the MORE extraordinary the claim then the MORE evidence is generally required to justify belief. An ordinary claim typically requires merely the say-so of the claimant to justify belief. An extraordinary claim, however, typically requires more than the mere say-so of the claimant to justify belief.

BTBOY500:
Below is a relevant link on this topic.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm

POWELL:
Thanks for the link to G. Brady Lenardos article, BTBOY500. I recently read that essay as well as a rebuttal to it by Paul Jacobsen at http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/arti...ary_events.htm
and a debate between them that followed.

In my opinion, one of Lenardos' biggest errors is believing that if historians consider that the available evidence justifies believing in the ordinary claims in the Bible then the extraordinary claims should also be believed.

JASON:
Thanks btboy500. Good article.

It does pose a good question. What would qualify as evidence for the resurrection and why doesn't the current evidence qualify ?

Jason

POWELL:
The Bible can be evidence for the resurrection, Jason, but it's insufficient evidence in my opinion and can be better explained as pointing to a different conclusion.

The question is what would be the sufficient / extraordinary evidence needed to justify belief. It's staring you in the face, Jason. It's what the disciples, especially Thomas, required to justify their belief.

Actually, most skeptics would not require seeing and feeling Jesus personally to persuade them to believe Jesus was alive after being dead for 1 1/2 days. If there were more modern, well attested examples of humans reviving after being dead for 1 1/2 days under conditions similar enough to those of Jesus then I believe many, if not most, current resurrection skeptics would concede that Jesus really did revive after being dead that long. That's because the claim would no longer be so extraordinary that the Biblical claims would be insufficient evidence. It's because such a claim is extraordinary (no well attested modern examples) that the mere claims in the Bible are insufficient to persuade them.

Scripture Verse:

John 14: 12 (KJV):
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

POWELL:
Given that Jesus promised that his faithful followers would perform the same and even greater miracles than those he performed, where are those well attested modern examples of multi-day resurrections, Jason? Are Christians of today without sufficient faith?

John Powell

This is a great thread. I think as someone raised in a christian tradition, I asked myself this same question a million times and always balk at answering. The extraordinary evidence principle is OBVIOUS ethnocentric and thus forces skepticism on us. As a Christian it is often hard to admit that many of the accounts in the Bible may be exaggeration, wisetales and/or legends. Personally, those stories of incredible, miraculous events have little or no bearing on my belief in God and eternal consequences for one's behavior. Nor, does it take away from the basic principle of truth that all of these faiths teach. Peace, patience, faith in "right" and a common manner in which you should treat others.

At the same time all of these faiths have internal divisions as well....some believe you should keep this tradition, while others claim you must obey this one. Rejection of God outright is not a logical alternative....a yerning to learn more about the world we live in, acheiving peace and accepting our differences should be the goal of all, regardless of cultural background. Love your neighbor....Jesus even went so far as to say, "love your enemy." So this problem of the extraordinary evidence principle should be presented and considered by every religious person as a lesson in ethnography and we should do more to learn about another's faith as oppossed to attacking. In the very least, how can one effectively challenge a belief system unless one truly understands it. This is why I am very reluctant to challenge the belief system of another....I do not believe it, because I do not understand it and been enculturated with it, so how can I effectively judge it. To judge would show a lack of wisdom, patients and love. Many similarities exist in the virtues of these faiths.....I would love to see a book that explored the likenesses and differences in virtues of the world's major faiths......Does anyone know any non-centric work done in this area?