Radorth

A-M apparently trolls the boards waiting for such moments. Kinda reminds me of the witnesses at the Salem witch trials.

Radorth

Radorth

OK Vork, you have me there. I would come out but then I'd have to brag a little. I prefer to write original stuff occasionally and let your fans conclude what they will. Not that anything in the world is very original, though we like to think so. How close are we to creating living pond scum from chemicals anyway?

Radorth

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Anunnaki

You mean hysterically superstitious and frightened ignorant Christians?
This sounds a lot more like yourself than it does Amen-Moses.

NOGO

Right! And I will be there when you take your last breath to tell you that you are wrong and have not shown a single rational arguement for your beliefs.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Radorth:
A-M apparently trolls the boards waiting for such moments.

Plus a few years moderating your shit at another forum!

Kinda reminds me of the witnesses at the Salem witch trials.

What have your ancestors got to do with it?

Amen-Moses

Vorkosigan

Very close. Haven't you heard of John Ashcroft?

Layman

Actually, your argument is not based on any evidence at all. It's based, as you admit, on a philosophical presumption that miracles did not occur in history. It's a way of avoiding the evidence altogether and simply asserting you are right.

No, it means that you will not even look at any evidence that supports their occurence, because you assume they cannot be proven.

When you claim that something is "not proven" you should at least allow for the possibility that it "could be proven." But you don't. Which is why your whole post is really just a restating of your initial assumption.

Layman

But what is your point? Certainly it is possible that the evidence for a Christian miracle -- the resurrection for example -- is rather stronger than the evidence for other historical claims of the miraculous.

Now there's a dubious and unsupported claim. The point is that there are no supernatural claims outside of the Christian tradition that are considered to be true. Thus, the Christian claim that they're supernatural claims are true must be considered special pleading. To date, you've done everything but tackle the point, so I've emphasized it so you can't miss it. Maybe you'll even address it, though I doubt that.

My claim cannot be "dubious and unsupprted" because it is merely expressing a theoretical possibility that you have failed to address: It is possible that some claims that miracles have occurred are stronger than others.

I did not assert that this was necessarily the case in this post, just that it was a theoretical possiblity. And because it is a theoretical possibility, your claim that a Christian who disbelieves other miracles while believing some Christian miracle claims is not necessarily true.

And I don't think you understand the use of the "special pleading" fallacy. Even if it Christians engaged in special pleading in their acceptance of Christian miracles (which would be a rather difficult thing to prove for a number of reasons), it would not prove that no Christian miracles ocurred. It would mean that Christians were being illogical in accepting Christians miracles with x level of support while rejection Hindu miracles with x level of support. It does not necessarily mean that neither the Christian miracle or the Hindu miracle occurred.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Family Man

You have a point, so let me restate. My position is based on how evidence is routinely evaluated by historians. In the hundreds of books on history I've read in my lifetime, not one ever admitted the possibility that a supernatural event could be considered historical. In my first post on this subject, I asked for a single counter-example. I haven't gotten one yet. I think my point holds up very well.

BTW: please reread E.P. Sanders and explain to me why he says the birth narratives were fiction and that Jesus walking on water never happened.

Me and just about every historian who writes on the subject. I think I'm in very good company here.

Because there is no possibility that it could be proven. How, pray tell, do you verify that a supernatural event occurred? And if you can't verify that a event occurred, how can you assume that it did? That is the reason why the Resurrection can't be considered an historical event.

Nor are your complaints about "assumptions" terribly convincing. Your assumptions guide your thinking also; the trouble is, you won't find a lot of support among historians for your position. And unlike myself, you can't even justify your assumptions.

Family Man

Since all miracles can not possibly be verified, all miracle claims -- Christian or otherwise -- carry the same evidentiary value: Zero. No where in the historical literature will you find the argument made that one miracle has better evidence for it than another miracle. If you have one, I'd be interested in seeing it.

And, in fact, I do understand what special pleading is. I'm sorry, but your post is a perfect example of special pleading. No where else is your argument made, but Christianity somehow is different. The evidence is "stronger" in the Christian case, even though in all other cases miracles are dismissed out of hand. How can the evidence be stronger for Christian miracles when the evidentiary value of miracle claims is always zero? You multiply any number by zero you still end up with zero.