dog-on

So what did you mean by your statement regarding Erhman's view of miracles?

You seem to want to say that if miracles actually happened then it would be irrational to deny them. I see no problem with this, except for the fact that miracles have never been demonstrated to actually happen. So how could they actually be viewed as probable?

ApostateAbe

The philosophy is pretensed on the idea that it is independent of whether or not miracles have actually occurred, and Ehrman repeatedly says so. He says that if miracles have actually occurred in the past, then historians would still have no choice but to find a natural explanation. But, there can be circumstances in a thought experiment where that would be silly. If miracles were a normal everyday part of our existence, then explanations that involve miracles for historical events would not at all be off the table. So, at least the pretense is wrong. With no pretense, we can dismiss supernatural explanations simply by using the Argument to the Best Explanation. If the supernatural explanation has less explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, consistency and is more ad hoc than the best competing naturalistic explanation, then the supernatural explanation fails (and it probably always will fail). If the supernatural explanation wins, then it wins. We have no need for a priori exclusions, and we can be fair and philosophically consistent.

dog-on

We do not need a priori exclusions regarding miracles since miracles are self excluding, by definition. This is just reality, thought experiments aside.

ApostateAbe

You say, "by definition," much like Ehrman. By any definition that I have seen, miracles are not excluded from consideration by definition. They are excluded by observation and reasoning. Since we don't observe miracles, and since they don't fit into any accepted sensible explanatory framework, then we exclude them. We don't exclude them by definition, nor are miracles unlikely by definition. Like Ehrman, you seem to be building a strawman model of "miracles" so that it seems to be the concept of miracles that excludes itself a priori, not you yourself.

dog-on

You missed the point. Miracles themselves are not excluded by anything more then the fact that for all intents and purposes, miracles are imaginary events. If you could prove a miracle, then you can prove it. Other than that, a miracle is treated no different than any other imaginary event.

Are you saying that historians should make a special case for miracles as opposed to any other imaginary event?

ApostateAbe

Great, I am with you on that completely.

Toto

Please stop referring to "superskeptical" arguments. There is only normal skepticism, which looks for evidence. You have no evidence.

:huh:

Ehrman is not trained as a historian. He spend his academic career in New Testament studies, which has its own conventions.

I think you are still shooting from your hip. You are repeating the flimsy arguments that Christian apologists used to make here on why we should trust "authorities" on the existence of Jesus. You haven't even examined the case that these so called experts make for the existence of Jesus beyond reading a few books.

If the authorities, even the ones who display bias against the interest of the Christian religion, dismiss the arguments

But realize that one can be quite biased against the Christian religion and believe that there was a historical Jesus. This has been the posture of many in the quest for the historical Jesus, to find out why Christianity turned out so badly.

dog-on

I thought so.

ApostateAbe

Only a super sort of skeptic would think that I "have no evidence," for my position, though a normal skeptic may think that I lack sufficient evidence. I do have a tough time finding an appropriate word to describe the 56.10% of forum participants who believe that we do not have enough information to draw a conclusion. You seem to prefer "normal skepticism," so how about I remove the space and say, "normalskepticism" and "normalskeptics"? Do you still take offense? Yeah, I bet you would. You would take offense at any label that draws a distinction between the normalskeptics and the perfectly reasonable people of the world. Well, too bad.
I know that the normalskeptics tend to think that New Testament studies breaks the rules of normal historical practice, but that is not what I observe, and it seems more of a reflection of the prejudice of normalskeptics. Ehrman is trained as a New Testament scholar, which is a subset of history, and it does not have conventions that a normal historian would find unacceptable. But, at least I know that you don't trust Ehrman's intellect any more than his honesty, and that's cool.
Exactly what do you want me to do? Not that it matters, since I have only a few weeks left before I will need my ass kicked off the Internet and other time-wasters.
Yes, you got that right.

Toto

Are you more interested in insulting people or examining your so called evidence?

This is all wrong. NT studies is not a subset of history. It follows conventions that historians would laugh at, and justifies that by the lack of hard evidence. And I don't know what I said that would indicate that I have any problem with Ehrman's intellect or honesty, and I ask to you withdraw that.

Since you have not studied history, how would you know whether NT studies break the rules of normal historical practice?

I want you to stop trying to insult people, and stop posting claims that go beyond your area of knowledge. You have no training in history, and you just don't know what you don't know.