Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juma · 01-18-2013, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Yes, that's a fair answer. It sounds to me that the inability to accept historical testimony that goes against one's own view of the world, is due to two things:
1. The lack of personal verifiability
2. The distrust of stranger testimony no matter how strongly the evidence supports its truth.

SO, I wonder, is quality of evidence important at all? Or does it really come down to this: If I can't see it with my own eyes, I have no obligation to consider its truth.

Dont think so at all. The problem here is that there is no way we can repeate the claimed miracles as they were performed. On the other hand we could reproduce sinilar miracles repeatedly in controlled experiments then maybe.

Atheos · 01-18-2013, 03:32 PM

Spin beat me to the punch, but I'd like to add another thought I had while cogitating over this for awhile longer.

TedM is trying to argue that it is not consistent to accept some things as being true if it is impossible to duplicate them while reckoning that other non-duplicable things are not. His original example was Big Bang cosmology.

I think that's a reasonable line of thought to pursue. Obviously we currently lack the technology to replicate the singularity or the start of its expansion. However it is possible, using a variety of scientific disciplines, to observe that the universe is, indeed, expanding. BB cosmology is an excellent attempt to create a model of the universe that takes all this undeniable evidence into account. The evidence in this case (an expanding universe) provides the reason for which a theory is needed.

But in the case of the miraculous claims in the New Testament there is no mandate for an explanation that requires one to accept (as a possibility) that a miracle might have occurred.

As an example, had it been claimed that Jesus actually did say to a mountain "be removed and cast into the sea," and that this actually happened, then such an event might well leave tangible evidence that could be verified: The footprint of a mountain, neatly shaven off level, having contours that match perfectly those of a mountain that looms just off the coast nearby. Such evidence as this would demand an explanation as to how this great feat was accomplished.

But, alas, none of the miracles claimed to have been performed by this man would have left behind even the slightest trace of physical evidence.

So we're left with a situation where it is much more reasonable to conclude that people made these fantastic tales up in an attempt to give their hero powers that matched those of the prevalent god-myths of the era, rather than that these events actually occurred as written.

srd44 · 01-18-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Just curious:

What early documentation would to you be both convincing and reasonably expected, as evidence of the truth of the gospel claims -- miracles and all?

Note that while one might say that if thousands of perfectly preserved documents were found in dozens of different places in support of the gospels would be 'convincing', it is not 'reasonably expected'.

Please do not indicate what you find 'UNconvincing' or 'UNreasonable'. This isn't a critique of what we have. I want to know what historical document scenario -- if any -- would be enough to convince folks that the gospel stories really happened 2000 years ago.

Your answer might be of the form "I would be convinced if ....."

How many version of superman must one collect and watch to prove that superman exists?

I.e., what is tha fallacy in the OP?

andrewcriddle · 01-19-2013, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The question is exceedingly difficult because of the nature of miracles. They are outside the ken of historical sources. As Hume has been mentioned already, he helps to elucidate the issue. The only reason for one to accept the incredible is in the circumstance that it would be more incredible not to accept it. This would mean that the evidence needs to convince the reader that it would be more incredible not to believe its incredible narrative. That's the theory. What would be your own response to the query, if it were aimed at, say, the miraculous things of Apollonius of Tyana, being in two places at once, predicting the death of Domitian, being assumed into heaven?

This may damage my credibility as a rational person; but although the bilocation and assumption into Heaven of Apollonius appear clearly legendary, his clairvoyance of the death of Domitian seems relatively well supported by ancient testimony and I tend to believe it actually happened.

Andrew Criddle

Jaybees · 01-19-2013, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Just curious:

Your answer might be of the form "I would be convinced if ....."

Fundamentally, there are two polar opposite approaches to phenomena.

Something unusual happens, like finding (as some recent scientists did) that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, something that completely violates existing scientific views of natural laws. The response could have been:

1. It's a miracle.

or

2. Let's investigate further.

JoeWallack · 01-20-2013, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Just curious:

What early documentation would to you be both convincing and reasonably expected, as evidence of the truth of the gospel claims -- miracles and all?

JW:
This is not a question which should be asked in this Forum. FRDB is based on science and per science miracles are impossible or at least the least likely explanation. If you insist on looking for answers to the question you should go to a Forum which is based on faith such as Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research.

The related question here would be a hypothetical one:

What early documentation would to you be consistent with a conclusion of the gospel claim of a miracle?

The answer has been identified many times on this Forum Ad Nazorean. All of the following:

1) Quality witness credentials:

General credibility

Capability

Objectivity
Specific credibility

Position
2) Confirmation

Multiple

Lack of contradiction
3) Transmission

We have no provenance for any Gospel author so there is no basis to weigh credentials. Even if we knew or you think you know the author of the original Gospel "Mark", there is an Epic Fail on every one of these criteria.

More importantly, the question has been posed on this Forum as to how to improve discussion. I have a rule on my Forum, ErrancyWiki that false statements are not allowed. How about such a rule here?

Joseph

PRAY, v.
To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

ErrancyWiki

Sheshbazzar · 01-22-2013, 12:48 AM

If you really believe all that miracle stuff Ted, Why then did you choose Horse #1? The Jebus that died and rotted away like any man?

Are you trying to say that Jebus could have really performed those NT miracles, but could not pull off the miracles of rising from the dead and levitating off into the sky? Why would you think that he possibly could have done the former but not the latter?
What's the big deal? if miracles are possible, it should have been just as possible for Zombie Jebus to rise from the dead and levitate.

If you do think 'it most reasonable to believe in the possibility of 'miracles' why limit the miracles to those mundane magic tricks that were claimed for damn near every old religious fake or figure? Zombie Jebus puts on a much better act.

I really don't understand why, if you believe in the possibility of miracles, you don't believe that your Jebus rose from death and the grave, and flew off into outer-space where he has been sitting on Gawd's right hand for the last 2000 years give or take a few.
Believing in miracles, You really should oughter have picked Horse #2.

spin · 01-22-2013, 05:25 AM

TedM, why have you been running the gamut of cheap christian apologetics since you've been back? You had more perspective in your efforts here before you were distracted. You asked a question in this thread that you seem uninterested in answering yourself, when I attempted to respond to the question and I asked you would respond in a similar situation regarding Apollonius of Tyana (see post #60 of this thread). You're even flogging the sad myopic anthropocentric universe fallacy and trying very hard to draw parallels between your misrepresentations of the gaps in physics and theological impossible truths.

Elsewhere you rehearsed some old bible and spade nonsense from W.F. Albright. And further, rerunning the ossuary stuff with only one side of the picture, totally ignoring the consistent Israeli scholarly response to the artefact, while knowing that no conclusions can ever come from the box. Yuval Goren et al. might not have been able to demonstrate to a court that the item had to have been a fake, but the job of demonstrating any value from the inscription is much harder.

Why are you doing these reheats? This stuff is old and tired and fruitless. Haven't you got anything better to do?

stephan huller · 01-22-2013, 07:11 AM

Oh but he's 'not a Christian.' Oh no, he's 'just a guy interested in the truth.' Like Pete Townsend 'doing research' ...

TedM · 01-22-2013, 10:49 AM

Shesh,

The answer to all of your questions is in my post.

Spin,

I find these various topics interesting and -- at my present level of knowledge -- insufficiently explained.

I don't consider these retreats. I hadn't checked back on the Ossuary stuff in over 5 years--didn't know that the trial had even ended (or that it was such a strange one), was unaware of the arguments against Genesis 10 (other than the Flood) -- which is why I simply asked for input, and from what little I know of the anthropocentric universe it isn't a fallacy. It is what the science shows. The crazy math of 26 dimensions is just that: crazy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-18-2013, 03:32 PM	#62
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	Spin beat me to the punch, but I'd like to add another thought I had while cogitating over this for awhile longer. TedM is trying to argue that it is not consistent to accept some things as being true if it is impossible to duplicate them while reckoning that other non-duplicable things are not. His original example was Big Bang cosmology. I think that's a reasonable line of thought to pursue. Obviously we currently lack the technology to replicate the singularity or the start of its expansion. However it is possible, using a variety of scientific disciplines, to observe that the universe is, indeed, expanding. BB cosmology is an excellent attempt to create a model of the universe that takes all this undeniable evidence into account. The evidence in this case (an expanding universe) provides the reason for which a theory is needed. But in the case of the miraculous claims in the New Testament there is no mandate for an explanation that requires one to accept (as a possibility) that a miracle might have occurred. As an example, had it been claimed that Jesus actually did say to a mountain "be removed and cast into the sea," and that this actually happened, then such an event might well leave tangible evidence that could be verified: The footprint of a mountain, neatly shaven off level, having contours that match perfectly those of a mountain that looms just off the coast nearby. Such evidence as this would demand an explanation as to how this great feat was accomplished. But, alas, none of the miracles claimed to have been performed by this man would have left behind even the slightest trace of physical evidence. So we're left with a situation where it is much more reasonable to conclude that people made these fantastic tales up in an attempt to give their hero powers that matched those of the prevalent god-myths of the era, rather than that these events actually occurred as written.

01-22-2013, 12:48 AM	#67
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	If you really believe all that miracle stuff Ted, Why then did you choose Horse #1? The Jebus that died and rotted away like any man? Are you trying to say that Jebus could have really performed those NT miracles, but could not pull off the miracles of rising from the dead and levitating off into the sky? Why would you think that he possibly could have done the former but not the latter? What's the big deal? if miracles are possible, it should have been just as possible for Zombie Jebus to rise from the dead and levitate. If you do think 'it most reasonable to believe in the possibility of 'miracles' why limit the miracles to those mundane magic tricks that were claimed for damn near every old religious fake or figure? Zombie Jebus puts on a much better act. I really don't understand why, if you believe in the possibility of miracles, you don't believe that your Jebus rose from death and the grave, and flew off into outer-space where he has been sitting on Gawd's right hand for the last 2000 years give or take a few. Believing in miracles, You really should oughter have picked Horse #2.

01-22-2013, 05:25 AM	#68
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	TedM, why have you been running the gamut of cheap christian apologetics since you've been back? You had more perspective in your efforts here before you were distracted. You asked a question in this thread that you seem uninterested in answering yourself, when I attempted to respond to the question and I asked you would respond in a similar situation regarding Apollonius of Tyana (see post #60 of this thread). You're even flogging the sad myopic anthropocentric universe fallacy and trying very hard to draw parallels between your misrepresentations of the gaps in physics and theological impossible truths. Elsewhere you rehearsed some old bible and spade nonsense from W.F. Albright. And further, rerunning the ossuary stuff with only one side of the picture, totally ignoring the consistent Israeli scholarly response to the artefact, while knowing that no conclusions can ever come from the box. Yuval Goren et al. might not have been able to demonstrate to a court that the item had to have been a fake, but the job of demonstrating any value from the inscription is much harder. Why are you doing these reheats? This stuff is old and tired and fruitless. Haven't you got anything better to do?

01-22-2013, 07:11 AM	#69
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Oh but he's 'not a Christian.' Oh no, he's 'just a guy interested in the truth.' Like Pete Townsend 'doing research' ...

01-22-2013, 10:49 AM	#70
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Shesh, The answer to all of your questions is in my post. Spin, I find these various topics interesting and -- at my present level of knowledge -- insufficiently explained. I don't consider these retreats. I hadn't checked back on the Ossuary stuff in over 5 years--didn't know that the trial had even ended (or that it was such a strange one), was unaware of the arguments against Genesis 10 (other than the Flood) -- which is why I simply asked for input, and from what little I know of the anthropocentric universe it isn't a fallacy. It is what the science shows. The crazy math of 26 dimensions is just that: crazy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.