Johnny Skeptic

I already answered your question. I said:

Since you are obviously having trouble understanding what I said, let me put it another way: Sufficient evidence for me that beings exist who are able to convert energy into matter by using thoughts would be contemporary, firsthand, tangible, empirical evidence that such beings exist. If such beings exist, they could easily provide that kind of evidence.

You still keep refusing to reply to what I believe are my best arguments. I said:

INTENT is possibly the key issue here. In court trials, the issue of INTENT is very important. It is no less important regarding supposed occurrences of tangible events that humans are not able to accomplish, events that by the way you yourself reject, and conveniently refuse to state why even though I have asked you for your opinion several times. The fact that no beings are presently providing the kind of tangible evidence that I mentioned, at least not on a basis that is easily verifiable, suggests that if such beings exist, they do not want people to believe that they are able to do tangible things that humans are not able to do. If that is the case, how can we reasonably verify that which they do not want us to reasonably verify? If that is not the case, what evidence is there that that is not the case?

GakuseiDon

But that doesn't answer the question. I don't care whether it is easy or not for non-human beings. That has nothing to do with the OP. (As I said, I suspect you have no interest in pursuing the topic, and you aren't posting in good faith. You want to pursue another topic entirely).

IYO, what would constitute "sufficient evidence" that Jesus performed the loaves and fish miracle? Simple question. It has nothing to do with "non-human beings" or beings who "convert energy into matter by using thoughts". Simply: what would constitute "sufficient evidence' that Jesus performed the loaves and fish miracle?

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, using your criteria, please give us your examination of the stories of the loaves and the fishes.

My topic is "How should we assess supernatural claims in all religous books?" Even though you have evasively, and quite conveniently, asked me what would be sufficient evidence for me, the topic does not require me to state that, but I did anyway. The topic does not state any of my opinions at all. Rather, it asks other people for their opinions.

The OP says:

The OP does not require me to answer the question. The question asks other people for their opinions. Another way of putting the OP would be "Is it more likely that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River than it is that Jesus performed miracles? What is your answer to both questions?

Johnny Skeptic

I think that a better question would be "IYO, what would constitute 'sufficient evidence' that Jesus, or any other being, is able to multiply loaves and fishes?" My answer is a contemporary personal demonstration by Jesus, or by any other being. If a being other than Jesus is able to multiply loaves and fishes today, that would greatly increase the odds that Jesus did that too, and I would not longer dispute that possibility. Just like you, based upon the Biblical evidence, I do not accept the story of the loaves and the fishes.

GakuseiDon

Then, to be clear, your answer to the OP is: "we can only assess the supernatural claims in religious books by getting contemporary personal demonstrations". IOW, you are unable to assess any supernatural claims. Is that correct?

figuer

To be present, observe, and check under Jesus' sleeves, otherwise it could be a magic trick, myth/falsification, or mistranslation.

If a reputable, scientific, unbiased personality (someone like Aristoteles or Archimedes), had written an eyewitness report of a similar event, I would still not 'believe' it, but I would consider it worthy of further investigation.

GakuseiDon

[QUOTE=figuer;4716958]Yes, but how would you investigate it?

Johnny Skeptic

The OP says:

I did not use the word "assess." I used the words "reasonably verifying." The OP asks a question. It does not require me to answer the question, but I did anyway, even though you unfairly asked me to do that which you continue to refuse to do. I will not continue to answer your questions much longer unless you show me the courtesy of answering my questions.

Based upon the OP, the question that you should have asked was "IYO, how do you suggest that we try to 'reasonably verify' [which are the exact words that are used in the OP] whether or not the story of the loaves and the fishes is true?" What is your answer, or is it your position that is not incumbent upon you to answer questions?

My current answer to that question is that in my opinion, the story of the loaves and the fishes cannot reasonably be verified based upon the information that we have at this time. The authors of the story are unknown. They did not reveal who their sources were. The texts do not say that anyone in the crowd knew that miracles were being performed.

It is my position that if beings exist who are able to do things that humans cannot do, they either 1) want people to believe that they exist, 2) do not want people to believe that they exist, or 3) do not care one way or the other if people believe that they exist. Which of the three choices do you endorse? Please answer the question, or do you not wish to embarrass yourself?

figuer

Considering something worthy of further investigation, doesn't mean one has conceptualised a propper investigative procedure.

Johnny Skeptic

What is to investigate? The authors of the story are unknown. They did not reveal who their sources were. The texts do not say that anyone in the crowd knew that miracles were being performed.

The issue of INTENT makes the questionable story even more quesitionable. If the story is true, if whoever multiplied the loaves and the fishes is still alive, all that he would have to do to convince a lot of people that the event was reasonably possible would be to show and and perform the miracles again. If he is alive, he obviously does not want people who are alive today to know that he can do that, in which case why should anyone try to find out that which he does not want anyone to find out?

What is your opinion of the story? Well, we already know that you have rejected it for reasons that you hopefully will state.