Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 03-20-2010, 06:12 AM

Consider the following from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Surely the criteria for evaluating supernatural history require more evidence than the criteria for evaluating secular history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I disagree that there is a different logic of truth between materialistic claims and immaterialistic claims. Mortimer Adler writes;

Quote:

"For example studies are currently being pursed by different disciplines to determine if the mind is immaterial or material.

"Now, if a person was making supernatural claims in the 1930’s in Moscow that she was a savior of humankind that person probably would’ve ended up in an institution or killed. If fortunate, she may’ve had a trial/evaluation of some kind and asked to give a sign of her miraculous powers, judged to harmless and released. However, if she 'disappeared' to Siberia or some other fate it may be extremely difficult to determine whether she was a historical person or not."

See below;

Quote:

"The Stalin-era Soviet Union also provided real-world examples of unpersons in its treatment of Leon Trotsky and other members of the Communist party who became politically inconvenient.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unperson

"Nevertheless this charismatic woman allegedly had disciples that began to write her sayings including such audacious claims that another world war would break out eventually leading to the establishment of the State of Israel in the 1940's with Jerusalem eventually being captured temporarily in the late 60's. Now, Georgy Maximilianovich Malenkov, who more tolerant than Stalin, allowed this cult to spread judging it to be an opiate for the masses. However, by the 70’s the KGB began to see this cult as a threat. To discredit this cult they claimed that there was no charismatic woman leader in the 30’s who claimed to have prophetic powers. In fact , the KGB claimed all of these religious writing were written post 1967.

"Fast forward to 2010, how would a university graduate student determine what actually happened?"

What arnoldo said does have anything whatsoever to do with what I said because it was merely another of his many attempts to claim that Jesus was a real person, not a myth, in other words, that Jesus was material, not immaterial. I do not have a position on whether or not Jesus was a reason person. Even if I did, that would not have anything to do with the methods of evaluating secular and supernatural claims.

Regarding "To discredit this cult they claimed that there was no charismatic woman leader in the 30’s who claimed to have prophetic powers," I never said that Jesus did not exist. My implication was that even if Jesus did exist, the methods of verification regarding whether or not he performed miracles would surely be different than the methods of verfication regarding, for example, wars and natural disasters. Wars and natural disasters are secular events, and they happen frequently. Their existence is easy to verify. On the other than, supernatural events are difficult to verify. The fact that supernatural events are difficult to verify does not necessarily mean that none have ever happened, only that people who claim that they have happened need a good deal more evidence than they would if they made secular claims.

Now here is the bottom line: Even if the methods of evaluating supernatural claims and secular claims ought to be the same, what evidence is there that Jesus performed miracles? <edited>

ApostateAbe · 03-20-2010, 07:23 AM

Looks like Johnny Skeptic is suspended.

Solo · 03-23-2010, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Now here is the bottom line: Even if the methods of evaluating supernatural claims and secular claims ought to be the same, what evidence is there that Jesus performed miracles?

This is not a question, but a suggested proposition - Jesus performed no miracles. If miracle was something that could be explained by science, it would not be a miracle. It would be a rare natural event, coincidence, hallucination, an effect of unknown technology.

Jesus walking on the water is a miracle because the molecular density of water will not support the weight of upright human body pressing on water with feet. Therefore, the claim is of a supernatural event. For people lacking the fundamentals of physics, and people who are illiterate or semi-literate, the evidence of the miracle is in that it is written in the book. For you and I, there is no evidence. It's strictly 'believe it or not'.

Jiri

dog-on · 03-23-2010, 06:27 AM

That Jesus performed any miraculous events, the evidence is just what some old texts say, which is not what I would consider good enough evidence to support the proposition that Jesus performed miracles.

Regarding evaluating a miracle. Why would the standards of evidence need to be any different for a supernatural claim.

The standard should always be that the evidence should be of sufficient weight to justify the likelihood of the claim it is supporting.

A miracle claim would just demand some fairly weighty evidence in order to support it's likelihood. Someone's word just wouldn't do it.

Sai · 03-23-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That Jesus performed any miraculous events, the evidence is just what some old texts say, which is not what I would consider good enough evidence to support the proposition that Jesus performed miracles.

Regarding evaluating a miracle. Why would the standards of evidence need to be any different for a supernatural claim.

The standard should always be that the evidence should be of sufficient weight to justify the likelihood of the claim it is supporting.

A miracle claim would just demand some fairly weighty evidence in order to support it's likelihood. Someone's word just wouldn't do it.

Cabeza de Vaca wrote about how the Indians he encountered thought he could perform miraculous healings, and had a number of them following him about.

Look at how many absurdly credulous and supersitious people we have here in the USA.

i heard someone say that magician David Copperfield isnt doing tricks, its real! And he can do it because he is like a space alien.

For all we know, Jesus... if he ever actually existed...was an honest and decent person who would have been offended if anyone attributed magic tricks and miraculous healings to him.

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

03-20-2010, 07:23 AM	#2
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Looks like Johnny Skeptic is suspended.

03-23-2010, 06:27 AM	#4
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	That Jesus performed any miraculous events, the evidence is just what some old texts say, which is not what I would consider good enough evidence to support the proposition that Jesus performed miracles. Regarding evaluating a miracle. Why would the standards of evidence need to be any different for a supernatural claim. The standard should always be that the evidence should be of sufficient weight to justify the likelihood of the claim it is supporting. A miracle claim would just demand some fairly weighty evidence in order to support it's likelihood. Someone's word just wouldn't do it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.