Patriot7

False. There is a "falsification provision" that you and I use all the time. I stated it earlier in this thread. It's commonly referred to as the correspondence theory of truth. Aristotle advanced this theory formally, but it is used by virtually everyone, whether they've heard of or read Aristotle or not. Example - If I invited you to my house and I told you I have beer in the fridge and it's Newcastle Brown Ale, and you go to my fridge and sure enough there is a six pack of Newcastle Brown Ale in it, my claim was true.

Same goes with the Gospel accounts that claim the resurrection of Christ. DTC exclaims - "you can't even claim such a thing!!" Very well then. The Gospels do. So which is it? Is DTC right? Or are the Gospel accounts? Or are they both wrong?

I know naturalism as a rational philosophy is false, so I can reasonably exclude the view that the Gospels accounts are false in so far as that view is based in dogmatic naturalism.

Patriot7

Can you prove THAT empirically or with the scientific method?

If your worldview is the correct one, and naturalism and the scientific method are the only tests of truth, then kindly use the scientific method and empirical inquiry to prove your philosophy. Good luck! :wave:

Odemus

Beer in the fridge falls within the realm of normal expectations. I have no reason to doubt that you have beer, or even a particularly rare brand of beer in your fridge. If you told me you had a full grown elephant in your fridge I would have every reason to doubt it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ancient scribblings do not constitute evidence that men are raised from the dead, limbs are restored, or that an invisible omnimax creator being incarnated himself as a human and had himself slaughtered so that you could be saved from eternal hellfire.

Common sense objections refute you at every turn.

Diogenes the Cynic

Really? That's big news. Where is this reliable documetation?
What's improbable about the universe coming into existence?
The alternative has no "consequences." It's just irrational and unsupported by evidence.
No one has suggested that you should accept an argument from authority. You seem to simply have a problem accepting that the consensus exists at all.
Huh?
What's "indefinable" about it.I said there's no such thing as "dogmatic" naturalism. There is no dogma involved in assuming that the laws of physics can't be violated.
Empiricism is not a philosphy, it's a method.
What's "suspicious" about it? Why on earth should unsupported assertions of magic ever be given any automatic credence without proof?

Patriot7

emphasis mine.

"Universally acknowledged"? Shouldn't Norm be storming in here right about now, blowing the whistle and throwing the flag for moving the goal posts?

You are after the wrong thing in my humble opinion. I'm after the truth here. Not "universal acknowledgement" and/or the "consensus of a group of scholars". The history of science and human events is literally a record replete with examples of the consensus being wrong. Universal acknowledgement is the wrong goal post. The question is "are the gospel accounts true or not"? The "opinions of scholars" is an important piece of evidence that might help us avoid common pitfalls when investigating the claims of the NT. But that piece of evidence is not the final arbiter of truth. To define reality or truth as "whatever the scholars say", or to declare that reality must fit a philosophy of naturalism is the samething as putting our goal post on wheels and rolling it to wherever the evidence ball is kicked.

Diogenes the Cynic

You're the one who invented the phrase. You define it and prove it exists. You really have some work to do on figuring out where burdens of proof lie,
What other tests are there? What testing method do you apply to determine whether your own magical stories are more true than somebody else's magical stories?
I haven't espoused any philosophy so I can't help you there. I also find it amusing that you haven't seen fit to try to support a single one of the many extraordinary and fantastic claims you've made in this thread and yet you feel entitled to demand negative proof that the impossible can't happen from everybody else.

Sven

I don't think that Patriots posts are even worth responding to. This should be obvious to everyone following the thread.

cognac

Not where the supernatural is concerned. If you insist on that worldview, you have no means of distinguishing the truth between any two supernatural claims. Based on empiricism, there is a means of determining what is true, or even whether a statement can be decided. But by advocating the supernatural, you disqualify these principles.

Tell me why I should believe what the Christian writings say are miracles, but not that Achilles was a son of a God, and not what Herodotus tells me the Oracle said (that he claims came to pass), or for that matter why I shouldn't believe the competing claims of other religions that counter the claims of Christianity.

Diogenes the Cynic

This kind of repeated attempt to misrepresent other posters is approaching a level of outright dishonesty.
It sounds like you're acknowledging that the consensus exsists and that now you're just whining about it. FYI, though- the consensus is not the evidence. the consensus is a result of the evidence.

If you don't think empirical method is sufficient to determine the "truth" of the Gospels (something we aren't really discussing, by the way, we were talking about authorship but just so you know, it's pretty much taken for granted that none of the supernatural claims of the Gospels ever happened regardless of authorship), what method should we use? What test can you apply to determine that the NT is "true" and that the Koran is "false?"

Patriot7

Odemus,

In context, you may notice this example was in response to cognac's post in reference to truth.

What do you have in mind? Seriously. What extraordinary evidence do you have in mind? To me extraordinary evidence of the Gospel accounts would be something like a TV film. As television was not invented yet, this would be extraordinary evidence indeed! How would you have preferred these events to have been recorded?

What evidence do you have that leads you to believe the NT is ancient scribblings?...... amounting to a little more then what you or I would doodle on a paper napkin?