Miracles

[kenberg]

Miracles are things that happen and can't be explained with our wisdom.

 

Am I right so far?

No, not as I see it anyway. I argued earlier that since I don't accept the existence of a Divine Being, my non-belief in miracles is automatic. If I were to take your way of thinking of miracles, I would then say of course I believe in miracles. There are many things that I cannot explain, and more than a few things that no one can explain.

 

I am not trying for a mere semantic point here. When people speak seriously about miracles (rather than the colloquial, such as "That contract was so stupid it was a miracle that I escaped for minus 300") I think they include some sort of divine interpretation.

 

But, perhaps at least, I agree on the general thrust of your post. If someone wants to say " Regardless of the physical explanation, it's a miracle that we exist at all to contemplate the possibilities" I would not quarrel all that much. I prefer the more religiously neutral "Beats me how it all happened" but we can all agree that the creation of the universe was, to quote our vice-president, a big *****ing deal.

[Codo]

Ken nice to read your points (as usual).

Here in Germany the catholic church is in search for miracles, the lutherian is not. So for me -living in the lutherian north- the connection between church and miracle is not as big as it is in most other parts of the world.

But I think that your view represents the majority view much closer then mine.

[Winstonm]

it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

The fallacy of your statement is that it is not enough to simply believe in the possibility of extrarodinary methods as explanations for miracles, but one must also assume that a particular event was acted upon by this extraordinary power. No such dual belief is required to reject the claim.

there you go again... there is no fallacy in my statement... and fwiw i've been married 30 years to the same woman (to answer another poster)

Right. I always forget that a witty reparte' quality in an assertion makes it valid. Likewise, the non-intervention of a extraordinary being while I write this sentence is proof of that being using its free will.

 

I guess for the dyslexic theist that proof would be "The god who didn't bark in the night" argument.

[luke warm]

it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

The fallacy of your statement is that it is not enough to simply believe in the possibility of extrarodinary methods as explanations for miracles, but one must also assume that a particular event was acted upon by this extraordinary power. No such dual belief is required to reject the claim.

there you go again... there is no fallacy in my statement... and fwiw i've been married 30 years to the same woman (to answer another poster)

Right. I always forget that a witty reparte' quality in an assertion makes it valid. Likewise, the non-intervention of a extraordinary being while I write this sentence is proof of that being using its free will.

 

I guess for the dyslexic theist that proof would be "The god who didn't bark in the night" argument.

you really need to stop, you're embarrassing yourself

[mikeh]

One of the many problems that impair the reasoning of those who believe in miracles is that they somehow feel that the untestability of the proposition that there is a god makes it a 50-50 proposition: that since science cannot definitively prove that there is no god, the evidence has to be accepted as being neutral on the subject. Then it is a choice...and they choose to believe.

 

This is stupid: not silly...stupid. In a courtroom, for instance, we accept as fact anything proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, and anything proved on a balance of probabilites, in civl cases. Why? Because we realize that absolute proof of some things is simply not possible. And that that situation does not make every alternative equally valid. We weigh the evidence: all of it.

 

The fact that science so far can't answer every question is not an argument for a god. it is an argument for spending more intellectual effort and resources towards moving science forward. The history of science and religion (aka the belief in god) is one in which, at the beginning of the scientific method, most people accepted god as the answer and science had almost no answers to anything. Then as human understanding, rather than human superstition, increased, the areas of the universe that allowed for a supernatural 'explanation' decreased and those susceptible to scientific evidence increased.

 

It is a fallacy to point to the remaining areas of mystery and proclaim that such are the proof of god. They are, far more probably, proof that we haven't learned everything yet. And we have several hundred years of increasing knowledge and diminishing ignorance/religious explanations for physical phenonema that point quite persuasively to that situation.

 

Thus while science cannot rule out some form of god entity, it is simply a revelation of ignorance for anyone to argue that the probability that a god is the answer is of equal weight to the contrary.

 

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals. I would have thought that the sheer number of contradictory religions over time, let alone those currently prevalent, would have sounded some alarm bells. However, once one realizes the nature of organized religion, the reaons why believers remain so credulous becomes more understandable, tho sad.

[PassedOut]

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals. I would have thought that the sheer number of contradictory religions over time, let alone those currently prevalent, would have sounded some alarm bells.

Yes, one would think so, but a heavy counter-balance is the power of wishful thinking. Although people who believe in god are dead wrong, it doesn't really matter to me so long as they don't use religion to oppress others.

[mikeh]

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals. I would have thought that the sheer number of contradictory religions over time, let alone those currently prevalent, would have sounded some alarm bells.

Yes, one would think so, but a heavy counter-balance is the power of wishful thinking. Although people who believe in god are dead wrong, it doesn't really matter to me so long as they don't use religion to oppress others.

I agree entirely, but the problem is that the nature of religion requires that at least many of its proponents HAVE to coerce others, in one way or another.

 

Religions die. No one today worships the sun as a god. No one tears out the hearts of captured warriors in order to ensure a harvest. Those religions failed, as did the vast majority of religions.

 

Ironically, religions have arguably evolved and today's religions have developed powerful techniques that have allowed them to survive and prosper. These include:

 

1. create an us and them attitude: we are going to be saved, they will go to hell. We empathize with 'us' and dislike 'them'. The same approach is used by politicians and the media.

 

2. Punish those who leave the church: ostracize them, or even (Islam) kill them.

 

3. Get them young: childrens' minds are highly impressionable and incapable of critical thinking, so get them young (Sunday school, madrasah, etc)

 

4. Get them in groups: adults in a group environment, surrounded by a mono-culture of belief, can be converted by behaviours that they would consider aberrant if encountered in isolation: ever watch video of revival meetings, or other evangelical events?

 

5. Scare/entice them: since there are matters we can't know about, since we are aware of our mortality, since we fear death....hold out the illusion of a life after death, and the prospect of heaven or the fear of hell, and you have a powerful argument that can overcome rational thought.

 

And these techniques are aimed at one thing: the survival of the church....and as with any potentially immortal entity, that requires growth. Since the secular world is advancing and increasing, religions need to keep pace and, preferably, outpace the secular. Christianity, in the more advanced parts of the world, other than the US, is losing that battle, but Islam, a younger and more brutal religion, appears to be winning. it is no coincidence that it carries many of the religious characteristics to extremes, by comparison to Christianity. Killing apostates is the clearest indicator of this.

[luke warm]

This is stupid: not silly...stupid. In a courtroom, for instance, we accept as fact anything proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, and anything proved on a balance of probabilites, in civl cases. Why? Because we realize that absolute proof of some things is simply not possible. And that that situation does not make every alternative equally valid. We weigh the evidence: all of it.

assuming for the sake of argument that the resurrection of Jesus went to civil court, how do you think a jury would find based on the preponderence of evidence?

The fact that science so far can't answer every question is not an argument for a god.

i don't personally remember making such an argument; you can refresh my memory if i have

It is a fallacy to point to the remaining areas of mystery and proclaim that such are the proof of god.

see above

Thus while science cannot rule out some form of god entity, it is simply a revelation of ignorance for anyone to argue that the probability that a god is the answer is of equal weight to the contrary.

what would it take, in your opinion, for the existence of God to be ruled out?

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals.

me too

Although people who believe in god are dead wrong

based upon what?

it doesn't really matter to me so long as they don't use religion to oppress others

i agree, it's my belief that oppression has no place in religion, whether that oppression is of non-believers or even of other beliefs

[PassedOut]

i agree, it's my belief that oppression has no place in religion, whether that oppression is of non-believers or even other beliefs

And I agree that religious people should not be oppressed by the non-religious either, as has certainly been done by communist regimes.

[hrothgar]

assuming for the sake of argument that the resurrection of Jesus went to civil court, how do you think a jury would find based on the preponderence of evidence?

I think that this depends an awful lot on where you convened said jury...

 

I'd expect a very different verdict in, say, Tokyo or Stockholm than I would in the Bible Belt.

 

With this said and done, if folks were ruling strictly on hard evidence, I'd be shocked if any credible jury was able to find in favor of the resurrection.

[hrothgar]

what would it take, in your opinion, for the existence of God to be ruled out?

I don't think that its possible to disprove the existence of God, just as its impossible to disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, or the soul cake duck.

 

There are 1,001 and one things that I don't bother disproving each and every day... I seem to do quite well for myself without disproving the existence of

 

"God"

"Allah"

"Zeus"

"Xenu"

Flying Saucers

a decent fat free yogurt

 

I don't see why I should bother to treat your particular belief system any differently than any other tomfoolery...

 

All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false.

 

Martin Luther

[jdonn]

Lukewarm long ago was arguing that god exists and I used the exact same arguments (I wish I could remember exactly what they were) to argue something like there is an invisible pink elephant floating over all our heads that takes a big invisible crap in our hair every day. His response was something along the lines of 'that is ridiculous'. But I still await the argument that I can't also use for my theory.

[mikeh]

assuming for the sake of argument that the resurrection of Jesus went to civil court, how do you think a jury would find based on the preponderence of evidence?

I think that this depends an awful lot on where you convened said jury...

 

I'd expect a very different verdict in, say, Tokyo or Stockholm than I would in the Bible Belt.

 

With this said and done, if folks were ruling strictly on hard evidence, I'd be shocked if any credible jury was able to find in favor of the resurrection.

Lukewarm presumably thinks that he'd be able to call witnesses who claimed to actually see the death, the entombment, and the later appearance of the allegedly deceased person.

 

This is because, I assume, he accepts that the version of the bible he read/had drilled into him, was factually accurate: an attitude that is incredibly idiotic and irrational.

 

Consider the answers to the following questions:

 

What is the date of creation of the earliest known versions of the new testament?

 

What evidence is there of any earlier written version?

 

What evidence is there that anyone who was a follower of Jesus, during jesus' lifetime, knew how to write?

 

What evidence is there that if any of them knew how to write, they actually recorded anything?

 

Why is it that some of the early gospels, which from any objective view of documentary authenticity (and I am not speaking of historical accuracy, just of when and how and by whom they were physically created) were rejected by the organized church, while others, which are not entirely consistent with each other, were accepted?

 

Consider: the earliest gospels are believed to have been written anywhere from several decades to almost 150 years after Jesus died. Life expectancy back then was very low, and would have been lower than the norm for the working class: presumably people with more money lived better, even if health care was abysmal for all: they were less exposured to injury (and any open wound pre-anti-bitoics could be lethal) or other forms of hardship.

 

There were few means of recording events and none of recording sight and sound. There was no understanding of the most basic aspects of natural phenonema, such as thunder and lightning, or algae blooms in water, or earthquakes, etc. All were given a supernatural cause. Bacteria were not even thought of, let alone discovered and so on.

 

Against that backdrop, what we see are inconsistent versions of stories about a charismatic leader, from a culture in which cults were commonplace, in a society that viewed itself as 'chosen' and yet was subjugated to the Romans. And these stories were written by people who almost certainly did not witness any of the events they described, almost certainly never even laid eyes on their central character, and probably never met anybody who had.

 

They were written, also, as part of an effort to build a cult into a religion. How many non-mormons accept the story about the golden plates? How many non-scientologists accept the story about aliens being transported to earth and tied down next to volcanoes, that killed them, leaving their engrams to bedevil us to this day? Stories like those are rejected by normal people because we see why they are propagated, while at the same time we see how they are based on ridiculous assertions of highly improbable events, offered without any more proof than 'believe me'.

 

So too are the gospels. The only difference is that the cult in whose service they were fabricated was a huge success, and that one of its most successful practices is to discourage critical thinking about itself.

 

In a courtroom, a lawyer would be laughed out of court if he tried to prove his case by offering, as truth, stories written by non-witnesses, let alone witnesses who can reasonably be seen to have a private agenda.

 

To assume that just because the gospels describe certain happenings means that those occurred is a revelation of stupidity.

 

If Lukewarm came up with a semi-illiterate, superstitious witness who swore to the truth of the resurrection, I strongly suspect that I would have a wonderful time in cross examination. Nobody who has not been or witnessed an aggressive, skilled cross examination has any idea what it is like. It ain't like the movies, but it can and usually does expose the weaknesses in the evidence.

 

Can I categorically disprove the resurrection? Of course not, and as others have pointed out, Lukewarm can't disprove a myriad of silly assertions (such as the FSM) either. The difference is that atheists and rationalists (the 2 often overlap) tend to reject as unproven and thus not reliable all stories that are inconsistent with the current scientific view of the universe, while religious believers only reject those that are not part of their mythology. And the saddest part of that is that they usually don't even see what they are doing.

 

On second thoughts, perhaps the saddest thing is that, according to one widely publicized survey, more than 70% of americans said that if science clearly proved that an article of their religious faith was wrong, they'd reject the science. So, to defeat the resurrectionists in court would require a jury, the majority of whom were not closed minded bigots. And, in the US, that seems, as far as religious issues are concerned, only slightly less likely than in the Vatican.

 

Finally, the questions I posed about the gospels are merely those that sprang to mind as I was typing. I have no doubt, at all, that reflection on the matter would generate a large number of additional problems with a belief structure founded on the accuracy of these scraps of parchment or other ancient writing media.

[luke warm]

assuming for the sake of argument that the resurrection of Jesus went to civil court, how do you think a jury would find based on the preponderence of evidence?

I think that this depends an awful lot on where you convened said jury...

 

I'd expect a very different verdict in, say, Tokyo or Stockholm than I would in the Bible Belt.

 

With this said and done, if folks were ruling strictly on hard evidence, I'd be shocked if any credible jury was able to find in favor of the resurrection.

Lukewarm presumably thinks that he'd be able to call witnesses who claimed to actually see the death, the entombment, and the later appearance of the allegedly deceased person.

well you're the lawyer, but is eye witness testimony considered "hard evidence" in a civil trial? and assuming for a second that someone (or several hundred someones) actually saw him killed and then saw him arisen, what kind of cross-examination would you use? i understand fully what you say about your skill in cross-examination, especially when the witness is semi-literate, ignorant, and superstitious (after all, how can such simple people hope to maintain their story in the face of such overwhelming intelligence), but remember we're assuming that these people not only *say* they saw what they saw, but actually *did* see it...

Lukewarm long ago was arguing that god exists and I used the exact same arguments (I wish I could remember exactly what they were) to argue something like there is an invisible pink elephant floating over all our heads that takes a big invisible crap in our hair every day. His response was something along the lines of 'that is ridiculous'. But I still await the argument that I can't also use for my theory.

not exactly... iirc, this argument went to epistemology and warrant for beliefs... for example, christians have historical facts concerning their beliefs (moreso than believers in invisible pink elephants, in any case)... anyway, the arguments used (mostly alvin plantinua's) were, shockingly, rejected - and this in spite of his monumental books

[mikeh]

assuming for the sake of argument that the resurrection of Jesus went to civil court, how do you think a jury would find based on the preponderence of evidence?

I think that this depends an awful lot on where you convened said jury...

 

I'd expect a very different verdict in, say, Tokyo or Stockholm than I would in the Bible Belt.

 

With this said and done, if folks were ruling strictly on hard evidence, I'd be shocked if any credible jury was able to find in favor of the resurrection.

Lukewarm presumably thinks that he'd be able to call witnesses who claimed to actually see the death, the entombment, and the later appearance of the allegedly deceased person.

well you're the lawyer, but is eye witness testimony considered "hard evidence" in a civil trial? and assuming for a second that someone (or several hundred someones) actually saw him killed and then saw him arisen, what kind of cross-examination would you use? i understand fully what you say about your skill in cross-examination, especially when the witness is semi-literate, ignorant, and superstitious (after all, how can such simple people hope to maintain their story in the face of such overwhelming intelligence), but remember we're assuming that these people not only *say* they saw what they saw, but actually *did* see it...

I am going to regret this, because trying to engage in debate with Lukewarm is an exercise in futility, but this last post was even more idiotic than his usual babble.

 

He is suggesting that we have a trial on the question of whether the resurrection of Jesus really happend and the basis of the trial is that we ACCEPT THAT IT REALLY HAPPENED.

 

Oh, the suspense! The mystery! The utter stupidity of the exercise!!!!

 

I know that he can read, in the sense of making out the words. He can write, in the same sense of knowing words. What he apparently can't do is think.

 

He apparently doen't get the point which is that one has a trial to resolve, as best as the judicial system allows, disputed questions of fact. The proponent of the fact in dispute tenders evidence in support of the fact, and the opponent gets to cross examine. The proponent concludes his case and, if there is a case to meet, the opponent calls his evidence, and the proponent gets to cross.

 

My point is that Lukewarm, if he were the proponent, would not be permitted to refer to the gospels: they are inadmissible under all rules of evidence of which I am aware. They were created by unknown people, at unknown times, from unknown (or non-existant) sources, in a language no longer used or else after a large number of questionnable translations.

 

So he'd have to call someone who witnessed it or claimed to have witnessed it.

 

If we stipulate that not only would hundreds of people say they witnessed it, but that we have to accept that they REALLY DID witness it..... wow...why have the trial?

 

I know....let's make it fair. Lukewarm gets to assume that he has hundreds of witnesses who did actually witness it.

 

I get to assume that I get to call the Roman equivalent of David Copperfield, who will explain precisely how he made it seem that way. I will also call several hundred people who helped Copperfield pull it off, and who then attended the tomb and witnessed Jesus' body rotting away precisely when the gullible were being fooled by Copperfield.

 

hey, if he can rig the trial by making idiotic assumptions about what really happened, why can't I?

[jdonn]

If we stipulate that not only would hundreds of people say they witnessed it, but that we have to accept that they REALLY DID witness it..... wow...why have the trial?

Good question. It's a good case though.

 

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I only ask you to accept but a single assumption during this trial. That my case is the true one. Now let's get started."

[luke warm]

well you're the lawyer, but is eye witness testimony considered "hard evidence" in a civil trial? and assuming for a second that someone (or several hundred someones) actually saw him killed and then saw him arisen, what kind of cross-examination would you use? i understand fully what you say about your skill in cross-examination, especially when the witness is semi-literate, ignorant, and superstitious (after all, how can such simple people hope to maintain their story in the face of such overwhelming intelligence), but remember we're assuming that these people not only *say* they saw what they saw, but actually *did* see it...

He is suggesting that we have a trial on the question of whether the resurrection of Jesus really happend and the basis of the trial is that we ACCEPT THAT IT REALLY HAPPENED.

that isn't what i said at all, but to make it simpler for you - i simply wanted to know how you'd go about crossexamining an eyewitness to an event... you would, i guess, base your strategy on the assumption that he is lying... what if he wasn't lying (or at least *thought* he wasn't lying)?

 

you implied, at least i read it that way, that your crossexamination prowess would be too much for a semi-literate witness whether he was lying or not... is that the case?

[mikeh]

In my experience, many people who describe events that they witnessed get it utterly wrong. Any experienced trial lawyer will confirm that, for example, if you have 6 eyewitnesses to an accident, you will have 6 versions of events...often with conflicting decriptions of the vehicles involved.

 

While the movies, and television, and books and media and, indeed, our judicial systems all seem to proceed on the assumption that eyewitness testimony is the best evidence, in reality, as experienced trial lawyers will usually attest and as psychologists working in the area always attest, eyewitness testimony is very, very suspect.

 

There are reasons for this, having their basis not merely in psychology but also in physiology. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have read a fair bit on it. A good part of my practice is as defence counsel on brain injury claims, many of which boil down to psychological issues rather than organic brain injury, so I have an extensive library in addition to materials on evidentiary problems. So, while not an expert, I am a well-educated layperson. if you wish to argue with me on these points, then I look forward to your credentials in this regard.

 

I would use that knowledge in exploring with the hypothetical witness the limits of his observational opportunities, the extent of his contemporaneous note taking, his exposure to post-incident information tending to colour or embed his perceptions, his vantage point, including acuity of hearing and sight, the intellectual foundation he brought to the experience and so on. On that last point, show him a video of him taken on a video camera and there is a reasonable prospect of his assuming that witchcraft was involved. Going back to my David Copperfield suggestion, my expectation would be that if one showed him another illusionist doing an act, he'd suspect and maybe perceive the illusion, while the witness hypothesized by Lukewarm would swear that the illusion was real.

 

In addition, memory changes over time, and often in the direction that most accords with our interests as we see them to be. Our memories tend to afford us wish fulfillment to some extent. Again, any experienced trial lawyer can confirm this. We often take people's evidence on the record a year or more before they testify. Unless they study their transcript carefully, it is almost always the case that their evidence will later be at variance with the earlier evidence, altho admittedly these discrepancies are on relatively minor points.

 

But I won one trial when the plaintiff lost initially, and the court of appeal ordered a retrial because of a bad ruling by the trial judge. We returned to court two years after the first trial. I had the transcript from the first trial, as did the plaintiff. When describing the damage to her vehicle she loudly proclaimed, with tears, that the front quarterpanel was crushed...completely crumpled. I challenged her on that, and she repeated it. I then confronted her with photos of the vehicle post collision...which photos had in the previous trial been id'd by her as accurate. They showed NO visible damage to the sheet metal.

 

Was she lying? No....it would have been ridiculous for her to lie, when we had earlier contradictory evidence from her and photos that she had seen and of which she had copies. And she was a university graduate, so not low IQ.

 

Her memory had changed, to make her accident, for which she blamed most of her problems, more significant than it really was.

 

Anyone credulous or ignorant enough to think, for example, that thunder was an expression of god's anger, or that an outbreak of plague was a divine punishment (reasonable in the context of a profound lack of the real concepts) is not going to be viewed, by most rational people today, as being capable of discerning non-supernatural explanations for unusual phenonema.

 

These are but some off the cuff matters I'd consider when attempting such a cross. In my business, there are 3 elements of successful trial work....preparation, preparation and preparation. if I were counsel, I'd probably work for several days crafting my cross examination, not the 7-8 minutes I spent on this post.

[Winstonm]

it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

The fallacy of your statement is that it is not enough to simply believe in the possibility of extrarodinary methods as explanations for miracles, but one must also assume that a particular event was acted upon by this extraordinary power. No such dual belief is required to reject the claim.

there you go again... there is no fallacy in my statement... and fwiw i've been married 30 years to the same woman (to answer another poster)

Right. I always forget that a witty reparte' quality in an assertion makes it valid. Likewise, the non-intervention of a extraordinary being while I write this sentence is proof of that being using its free will.

 

I guess for the dyslexic theist that proof would be "The god who didn't bark in the night" argument.

you really need to stop, you're embarrassing yourself

I certainly may be, and it won't be the first time. :o

 

Nevertheless, and unafraid, I point out you stuck your nose into a conversation I was having with Phil (which is perfectly fine and I do it all the time, too) but you made a comment based on my response to Phil.

 

Let's see where this all started.

 

Phil:

if miracles exist they represent always an act of free will on the part of God. Free will is always unpredictable.

 

And what I added was that if miracles represent always an act of free will on the part of God, then likewise inactivity (doing nothing, no miracle) also represents always an act of free will on the part of God.

 

Perhaps I am simply stupid (a reasonable proposition). But to me my response is 100% valid - that chosing to act or chosing not to act both require choice. Therefore, both are an exercise of free will. Both are unpredictable. So, if creating a miracle shows God using his free will, it follows that not creating a miracle, i.e., doing nothing, also shows God using his free will.

 

Now, If I am embarrassing myself for this refutation, then I am guilty. But I would appreciate someone pointing out where the error lies in my analysis - then maybe I will learn and be a little less stupid.

 

If your embarrassing youself comment was simply about the joke, then let me add that there is an old joke about the dyslexic agnostic who stayed up all night contemplating the existence of a dog. :P I gave that joke a little spin and added a twist of Sherlock Holmes to come up with the god who didn't bark in the night and the dyslexic theist.

 

I actually thought it was fairly clever. :blink: It amused me. But then, I'm a funny guy.

[Winstonm]

not exactly... iirc, this argument went to epistemology and warrant for beliefs... for example, christians have historical facts concerning their beliefs (moreso than believers in invisible pink elephants, in any case)... anyway, the arguments used (mostly alvin plantinua's) were, shockingly, rejected - and this in spite of his monumental books

 

Plantinga has also been refuted, which is actually pretty irrelevant. Logic, after all, can only provide a validation of itself, that a conclusion is not illogical. Logic is still based on axioms like: It is possible that a maximally great being exists. All logic can do from there - even the great Plantinga - is show that it is not illogical to reach a conclusion that a maximally great being exists: BUT THAT LOGIC IS WORTHLESS UNLESS YOU ACCEPT THE AXIOM AS VALID.

 

The bottom line once again is belief or faith.

 

We also have to keep in mind that Plantinga was acting as counsel for the defense in his argument for God. There was and still is opposing counsel.

 

On a side note, I once stated in another thread that your belief in God was illogical. That claim of mine was wrong. As logic itself is conceptual, a sound argument based on axioms can be made; however, because such an argument can only be conceptual, it is still not based on observable data. It is still only belief.

 

Disbelief, on the other hand, is based on observation: Show me God. If you can't show me God, then God is at best a logical necessity of a logical construction and thus conceptual, which then requires faith to accept as real.

[hrothgar]

not exactly... iirc, this argument went to epistemology and warrant for beliefs... for example, christians have historical facts concerning their beliefs (moreso than believers in invisible pink elephants, in any case)... anyway, the arguments used (mostly alvin plantinua's) were, shockingly, rejected - and this in spite of his monumental books

The many of the central tenets of Christianity were installed by a committee at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD

 

There are no contemporary first hand accounts of any of the "historical facts" to which you allude...

[mikeh]

... for example, christians have historical facts concerning their beliefs (moreso than believers in invisible pink elephants, in any case)...

This is the kind of argument that flows from an ignorance of history. Precisely which 'historical facts' are you referring to?

 

Oh...a hint...the gospels do not amount to evidence of the truth of what is set out therein. They amount only to evidence that unknown people at an unknown time wrote stories based on no known historical evidence. Does anyone other than a mormon accept that Joseph Smith's description of finding engraved plates constitutes historical fact that god revealed his words to him...and remember that his story was at least in the first person.

 

The fact that the stories you accept as true are old does not confer on them any claim to be historical fact when they post-date the events described by generations and contain no references to external sources...at a time of widespread superstition and illiteracy. We all know that if you tell something to one person, and they pass it on, within a few iterations, the story has been embellished, distorted, details added, changed and lost. Why does anyone think that this sort of thing didn't ever happen to religious myths told over generations and amongst and by hundreds or thousands of people, with no written text (as far as we know) to form a stable point of reference?

 

Now, if we had written texts from the jewish or roman authorities, contemporaneous with the life (and especially the death) of jesus, that would be historical fact. We might well judge it sceptically, but it would be evidence. However, despite the literacy of those authorities, and the historical evidence for a great deal of what happened back then, there is no record of the existence of jesus contemporaneous with his life (as far as I know, tho I am not an expert on this). Does that mean I don't think that he existed? No...but it does mean that I take, with a grain of salt, the legends that grew up around him after his death.

[mike777]

'to be fair...the Gospels and new testament are evidence......'

 

 

challenge evidence..or challenge called miracles....is to be fair.

 

I think to say the new testament is just utter nonsense in the sense of evidence is going to far......

but I am biased.

[mikeh]

'to be fair...the Gospels and new testament are evidence......'

 

 

challenge evidence..or challenge  called miracles....is to be fair.

 

I think to say the new testament is just utter nonsense in the sense of evidence is going to far......

but I am biased.

evidence of what? It is easy to be guilty of sloppy thinking....since the new testament is a document created many years after the events described; contains no reference to contemporaneous verifiable evidence supporting the important (from a religious p.o.v.) assertions of fact; was not written by anyone with first hand knowledge...it would not even be admissible under anglo-american rules of evidence. It is not merely 'weak' evidence...it is utterly inadmissible in a courtroom for a number of very cogent reasons. It is no more 'evidence' of the reality of jesus than the old testament is about noah's arc being real, or L. Ron Hubbard's fiction that underlies the beliefs of the scientology wingnuts.

 

IOW, you have to BELIEVE the myth to accept the book of the myth as being evidence of the truth of the myth...classic circular reasoning. So if you uncritically accept the gospels as true, you automatically and unthinkingly see them as evidence of their truth...and you have to, since there is no other evidence at all. It would be funny if religion was not such a terrible and malign influence on humanity.

[mike777]

'to be fair...the Gospels and new testament are evidence......'

 

 

challenge evidence..or challenge  called miracles....is to be fair.

 

I think to say the new testament is just utter nonsense in the sense of evidence is going to far......

but I am biased.

evidence of what? It is easy to be guilty of sloppy thinking....since the new testament is a document created many years after the events described; contains no reference to contemporaneous verifiable evidence supporting the important (from a religious p.o.v.) assertions of fact; was not written by anyone with first hand knowledge...it would not even be admissible under anglo-american rules of evidence. It is not merely 'weak' evidence...it is utterly inadmissible in a courtroom for a number of very cogent reasons. It is no more 'evidence' of the reality of jesus than the old testament is about noah's arc being real, or L. Ron Hubbard's fiction that underlies the beliefs of the scientology wingnuts.

 

IOW, you have to BELIEVE the myth to accept the book of the myth as being evidence of the truth of the myth...classic circular reasoning. So if you uncritically accept the gospels as true, you automatically and unthinkingly see them as evidence of their truth...and you have to, since there is no other evidence at all. It would be funny if religion was not such a terrible and malign influence on humanity.

I dont think the new text.. is slopping thinking or sloppy evidence...if you say so.....then hmmmmm

 

the discussion here is sloppy or worse....

 

------------------

 

let me back up if the new text in bible or old, jewish text, "sloppy" or insane...etc:

 

and show it

 

 

I will agree....with you..