Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on April 08, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
-
Have a look at Matthew's and Mark's accounts of the triumphal entry. After Jesus entered the temple, he began driving out those buying and selling.
As he does so he quotes Isaiah 56:7, "for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations"
Matthew here omits "for all nations", but Mark includes it, enabling the reader to understand why Jesus quotes this passage.
-
Spud,
Have a look at Matthew's and Mark's accounts of the triumphal entry. Matthew says Jesus entered the temple courts, Mark says he entered the temple. There he began driving out those buying and selling.
As he does so he quotes Isaiah 56:7, "for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations"
Matthew here omits "for all nations". Mark, writing for Gentiles, unwittingly enables the reader to understand why Jesus quotes this passage, by including the phrase "for all nations".
Jesus appears to be condemning the use of the outer court for selling sacrificial animals, because this area was originally reserved for non-Jews to worship in.
However, if we didn't have Matthew's version as well we wouldn't know that this all took place in the outer court. If we only had either Matthew or Mark we might not understand why Jesus quotes Isaiah 56.
So the two compliment each other by giving us a more complete picture.
Since they seem to have done this without realising it, maybe this is also evidence that they were written independently?
If a story was entirely fictional, one person wrote it and someone else embellished it you'd also have one story that complemented the first one by giving "a more complete picture", but that would tell you nothing about whether or not the first one was actually true.
In any case, most people are fairly relaxed I think about the idea of an itinerant mystic, preacher, conjuror etc (or possibly several of them whose stories were amalgamated) who did some memorable things that were recorded. This stuff tells you nothing at all though about any supposed divine component to his character.
-
Spud,
If a story was entirely fictional, one person wrote it and someone else embellished it you'd also have one story that complemented the first one by giving "a more complete picture", but that would tell you nothing about whether or not the first one was actually true.
How does a story that tells you nothing about whether it was true start off by being entirely fictional and then embellished?
-
Hi folks, I've realised that part of what I've said in the OP is wrong, so I'm in the process of editing it. Apologies for that.
-
Morning Spud,
Hi folks, I've realised that part of what I've said in the OP is wrong, so I'm in the process of editing it. Apologies for that.
If the error is about the content rather than the argument you were attempting I’m not sure it’ll make any difference for the reason I explained: a re-telling of a story with an embellishment would look the same whether the original was true or made up. If, say, my story was that I saw a dragon outside Sainsbury’s this morning and someone re-told it but added the detail that the dragon was wearing a rather jolly bonnet that wouldn’t in some way make my initial story true.
-
How does a story that tells you nothing about whether it was true start off by being entirely fictional and then embellished?
I think that Blue was referring to any story that was fictional and was then embellished by someone else. He was then making the point that this embellishment would give what looks like a more complete picture by complementing it. So, in other words, this is no argument for the original truth of the story at all. At least that's how I understand what he said..and I agree with him. Hence Spud's argument doesn't really hold water.
-
Have a look at Matthew's and Mark's accounts of the triumphal entry. After Jesus entered the temple, he began driving out those buying and selling.
As he does so he quotes Isaiah 56:7, "for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations"
Matthew here omits "for all nations", but Mark includes it, enabling the reader to understand why Jesus quotes this passage.
If the story has any credence he was guilty of vandalism.
-
I think that Blue was referring to any story that was fictional and was then embellished by someone else. He was then making the point that this embellishment would give what looks like a more complete picture by complementing it. So, in other words, this is no argument for the original truth of the story at all. At least that's how I understand what he said..and I agree with him. Hence Spud's argument doesn't really hold water.
His conclusion though contradicts his opening.
Its alright saying we dont know because but he starts with a conclusion and ends with a different one. This looks like a fallacy called a complex question and or question begging.
-
enki,
I think that Blue was referring to any story that was fictional and was then embellished by someone else. He was then making the point that this embellishment would give what looks like a more complete picture by complementing it. So, in other words, this is no argument for the original truth of the story at all. At least that's how I understand what he said..and I agree with him. Hence Spud's argument doesn't really hold water.
Yes, that is the point - you'll never get a sensible reply though.
-
enki,
Told you.
-
If the story has any credence he was guilty of vandalism.
I think God rearranging matter for the better is not vandalism any more than Leonardo painting over his work.
-
His conclusion though contradicts his opening.
Its alright saying we dont know because but he starts with a conclusion and ends with a different one. This looks like a fallacy called a complex question and or question begging.
I don't get that at all. He was giving the example of a fictional story and showing that embellishment doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the story was true. To do this he has to start with the conclusion that a story is fictional to demonstrate this point.
Therefore, when faced with a story that we do not know if it is true or not, we cannot use embellishment as a test for the truth of a story.
You might disagree, but this is all perfectly reasonable and I fail to see any fallacies have been committed. What he isn't saying is that a story must be false because embellishment must lead to that conclusion. So, question begging is not an issue at all. In other words he hasn't put up an argument where the validity requires that its own conclusion is true.
-
I think that Blue was referring to any story that was fictional and was then embellished by someone else. He was then making the point that this embellishment would give what looks like a more complete picture by complementing it. So, in other words, this is no argument for the original truth of the story at all. At least that's how I understand what he said..and I agree with him. Hence Spud's argument doesn't really hold water.
What you say in your correction of Hillsides posts might be true in certain circumstances of course.
But not in all circumstances where embellishment just makes a story less believable. Eg Chaucers Millers tale a retelling of the Knights tale.
-
I think God rearranging matter for the better is not vandalism any more than Leonardo painting over his work.
Jesus was no sort of god just an ordinary flawed human like the rest of us, that much is clear from the gopsels.
-
What you say in your correction of Hillsides posts might be true in certain circumstances of course.
But not in all circumstances where embellishment just makes a story less believable. Eg Chaucers Millers tale a retelling of the Knights tale.
No correction needed. It was quite clear from the start. Glad you agree that embellishment doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that a story is true or false, and you give an excellent example which shows the danger of using embellishment in this way. Spud, take note. :)
-
enki,
I don't get that at all. He was giving the example of a fictional story and showing that embellishment doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the story was true. To do this he has to start with the conclusion that a story is fictional to demonstrate this point.
Therefore, when faced with a story that we do not know if it is true or not, we cannot use embellishment as a test for the truth of a story.
You might disagree, but this is all perfectly reasonable and I fail to see any fallacies have been committed. What he isn't saying is that a story must be false because embellishment must lead to that conclusion. So, question begging is not an issue at all. In other words he hasn't put up an argument where the validity requires that its own conclusion is true.
Quite so. As I said though, you'll never get a sensible (or an honest) reply to that.
-
Anyways, derail aside Spud's argument seems to be that an embellishment in some way adds to the veracity of the story. Clearly that's not the case, so I don't see that corrections to the content can change the failure in the premise.
-
No correction needed. It was quite clear from the start. Glad you agree that embellishment doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that a story is true or false, and you give an excellent example which shows the danger of using embellishment in this way. Spud, take note. :)
My mistake.
Youve ended going along with Hillsides errors.
The danger of embellishment example I gave does not suplort yours or Hillsides argument.
Quite the contrary.
-
enki,
Told you so (2).
-
My mistake.
Youve ended going along with Hillsides errors.
The danger of embellishment example I gave does not suplort yours or Hillsides argument.
Quite the contrary.
You are obviously entitled to your POV which is one that I don't share. End of. :)
-
Morning Spud,
If the error is about the content rather than the argument you were attempting I’m not sure it’ll make any difference for the reason I explained: a re-telling of a story with an embellishment would look the same whether the original was true or made up. If, say, my story was that I saw a dragon outside Sainsbury’s this morning and someone re-told it but added the detail that the dragon was wearing a rather jolly bonnet that wouldn’t in some way make my initial story true.
Morning blue, Me thinking that I'd find lots of passages where one gospel account added detail that corroborated another gospel account... the NIV then punked me because it adds the word "courts" to "temple", when it isn't there in the original. If you look at my original OP in your first reply you'll see what happened!
Anyway, I'd say you were stood right next to the dragon and were really scared, so you didn't notice the bonnet it was wearing; the other person was further away and therefore was less scared, so he was able to notice the bonnet.
As you say, the story could be true or fictitious, and your word embellish almost assumes it is fictitious so let's just say "detail".
-
Morning blue, Me thinking that I'd find lots of passages where one gospel account added detail that corroborated another gospel account... the NIV then punked me because it adds the word "courts" to "temple", when it isn't there in the original. If you look at my original OP in your first reply you'll see what happened!
Anyway, I'd say you were stood right next to the dragon and were really scared, so you didn't notice the bonnet it was wearing; the other person was further away and therefore was less scared, so he was able to notice the bonnet.
As you say, the story could be true or fictitious, and your word embellish almost assumes it is fictitious so let's just say "detail".
But none of this tells you if the story is true!
Surely that is the point.
-
Hi Spud,
Morning blue, Me thinking that I'd find lots of passages where one gospel account added detail that corroborated another gospel account... the NIV then punked me because it adds the word "courts" to "temple", when it isn't there in the original. If you look at my original OP in your first reply you'll see what happened!
Anyway, I'd say you were stood right next to the dragon and were really scared, so you didn't notice the bonnet it was wearing; the other person was further away and therefore was less scared, so he was able to notice the bonnet.
Yes, but someone else adding the detail about the bonnet doesn’t thereby make my story “dragon” any more true than it ever was, which is the point. Maybe I just made up the dragon story; maybe my eyesight was so poor that I mistook a labrador for a dragon; maybe I lived in a community where dragon, gryphon, phoenix etc stories were commonplace so there’d be nothing special about me jumping to my conclusion; maybe any other non-dragon based explanation. Adding subsequently more information to the original story though doesn’t change any of that.
As you say, the story could be true or fictitious, and your word embellish almost assumes it is fictitious so let's just say "detail".
Not really – you can embellish anything, but OK call it what you will. Your argument though – ie, that the added bit somehow has something to say to the veracity or otherwise of the original story – is false.
-
Morning blue, Me thinking that I'd find lots of passages where one gospel account added detail that corroborated another gospel account... the NIV then punked me because it adds the word "courts" to "temple", when it isn't there in the original. If you look at my original OP in your first reply you'll see what happened!
Anyway, I'd say you were stood right next to the dragon and were really scared, so you didn't notice the bonnet it was wearing; the other person was further away and therefore was less scared, so he was able to notice the bonnet.
As you say, the story could be true or fictitious, and your word embellish almost assumes it is fictitious so let's just say "detail".
Embellish, schembellish. The points made by blue etc are valid in themselves, but I can't see how in the particular instance you cited. Mark's gospel was written first, and he quotes Isaiah (Septuagint version no doubt) pretty well. Matthew then uses Mark as the basis of his own gospel, and cuts out the bit referring to "for all nations" - for purposes of his own. In part, this is because Matthew's message is particularly directed towards Jews, though he doesn't portray them in a very rosy light.
The peculiarity of Matthew's gospel is that it seems to suggest that Jesus had a message for the Jews alone, and then at the end seems to have changed his mind and adopts a more universalist message. I'm not sure why this is so, but a number of theories have been put forward.
All in all, these matters don't go any further to sustaining your idea about each gospel corroborating each other: what they do suggest is that each evangelist had his own agenda, through which he was quite prepared to manipulate the materials at his disposal (whether they reflected actual historical truth or not).
-
Hi Spud,
Yes, but someone else adding the detail about the bonnet doesn’t thereby make my story “dragon” any more true than it ever was.
No it is just confirmation of an argumentum ad ridiculum, appeal to ridicule or Horse Laugh IMHO.
-
Your argument though – ie, that the added bit somehow has something to say to the veracity or otherwise of the original story – is false.
No. Mark's account helps to understand the problem Jesus had with what was happening at the temple, because he adds "My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations". He quotes Isaiah 56:7 more fully than Matthew, Luke or John. The temple, symbolic of God's presence and favour, was meant to be a beacon for the nations to draw them to the living God. To quote Stuart Bryan, "Israel had turned it into a nationalist symbol of Israel against the nations; they imagined that the temple made them superior in some intrinsic way to the rest of the nations on earth." They thought it protected them from God's wrath, hence Jesus' quote from Jeremiah 7:11.
J Warner Wallace's point is that an eyewitnesses account often raises questions, which are subsequently answered by another eyewitness. The addition here by Mark is suggestive of such a situation.
Not proof, but suggestive of.
Embellish, schembellish. The points made by blue etc are valid in themselves, but I can't see how in the particular instance you cited. Mark's gospel was written first, and he quotes Isaiah (Septuagint version no doubt) pretty well. Matthew then uses Mark as the basis of his own gospel, and cuts out the bit referring to "for all nations" - for purposes of his own. In part, this is because Matthew's message is particularly directed towards Jews, though he doesn't portray them in a very rosy light.
The peculiarity of Matthew's gospel is that it seems to suggest that Jesus had a message for the Jews alone, and then at the end seems to have changed his mind and adopts a more universalist message. I'm not sure why this is so, but a number of theories have been put forward.
Would this not make more sense if Matthew was the earliest gospel written, during the time when the focus of the apostles' ministry was still Israel? The reason he seems to have changed his mind towards the end is, according to R. Huessy, because Matthew is the first person to write down the gospel and during the course of doing so he realizes that he can no longer call himself a Jew (in the sense that they were God's people) because they had rejected the Messiah.
All in all, these matters don't go any further to sustaining your idea about each gospel corroborating each other: what they do suggest is that each evangelist had his own agenda, through which he was quite prepared to manipulate the materials at his disposal (whether they reflected actual historical truth or not).
-
The addition here by Mark is suggestive of such a situation.
It is well nigh on certain that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied him. You should not be asking why Mark added "for all nations" but why Matthew omitted it.
Would this not make more sense if Matthew was the earliest gospel written
Maybe, but it is much easier to explain most features of the gospels if Mark was written first. For example, Mark has neither the Lord's Prayer nor the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, he goes into much more detail about the pigs of Gerasene. You have to ask why Mark would omit two really important pieces of Christian theology but decides more is needed on pigs. Wouldn't it be more likely that Matthew and Luke would edit that story down and add the Semon on the Mount (or Plain) and the Lord's Prayer?
-
Spud,
No. Mark's account helps to understand the problem Jesus had with what was happening at the temple, because he adds "My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations". He quotes Isaiah 56:7 more fully than Matthew, Luke or John. The temple, symbolic of God's presence and favour, was meant to be a beacon for the nations to draw them to the living God. To quote Stuart Bryan, "Israel had turned it into a nationalist symbol of Israel against the nations; they imagined that the temple made them superior in some intrinsic way to the rest of the nations on earth." They thought it protected them from God's wrath, hence Jesus' quote from Jeremiah 7:11.
You’re missing the point still. Adding another detail to an existing story tells you nothing at all about whether or not that original story was true. Whether for example there ever was (or is) a “living God” isn’t elucidated by the bits Mark changed.
J Warner Wallace's point is that an eyewitnesses account often raises questions, which are subsequently answered by another eyewitness. The addition here by Mark is suggestive of such a situation.
Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account, and in any case even if he was he would also have been prone to the risk of mistake. For something prosaic like throwing over the tables of the money lenders it doesn’t matter much, but when you want to claim miracles then it matters a lot.
Not proof, but suggestive of.
No – see above.
Would this not make more sense if Matthew was the earliest gospel written, during the time when the focus of the apostles' ministry was still Israel? The reason he seems to have changed his mind towards the end is, according to R. Huessy, because Matthew is the first person to write down the gospel and during the course of doing so he realizes that he can no longer call himself a Jew (in the sense that they were God's people) because they had rejected the Messiah.
This has no relevance to the basic problem – subsequent reporting and amendment tell you nothing about the veracity or otherwise of the story that’s been amended. Whether the later author was working to an agenda, just fancied adding a bit more colour, thought he was illuminating what he thought the characters to have intended or just made a transcription error doesn’t matter for that purpose.
-
Spud,
J Warner Wallace's point is that...
Incidentally, on the basis of the quick look I had at this chap's website I'd be very cautious if I were you about relying on his ability to reason his way to a conclusion. The quick replies sections I looked at were all flawed in their thinking at best and flat wrong at worst. I can tell you why if you like, but it's not a good idea to build your house on sand.
-
Spud,
Incidentally, on the basis of the quick look I had at this chap's website I'd be very cautious if I were you about relying on his ability to reason his way to a conclusion. The quick replies sections I looked at were all flawed in their thinking at best and flat wrong at worst. I can tell you why if you like, but it's not a good idea to build your house on sand.
The first article I picked on there to read begin with:
“Christian leaders have been preaching Easter messages for over two thousand years.”
So literally the first sentence of his that I read contains a pretty obvious factual error. It doesn’t bode well.
-
jeremy,
The first article I picked on there to read begin with:
“Christian leaders have been preaching Easter messages for over two thousand years.”
So literally the first sentence of his that I read contains a pretty obvious factual error. It doesn’t bode well.
And that's a good as it gets!
-
Spud,
Incidentally, on the basis of the quick look I had at this chap's website I'd be very cautious if I were you about relying on his ability to reason his way to a conclusion. The quick replies sections I looked at were all flawed in their thinking at best and flat wrong at worst. I can tell you why if you like, but it's not a good idea to build your house on sand.
He does mix up Luke, Matthew and John when talking about the feeding of 5000 and blindfolding episodes in an interview. But the points were otherwise accurate. Also it's tempting to interpret his points as arguments for definitive proof that the gospels are eyewitness testimony - which they are not.
-
It is well nigh on certain that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied him. You should not be asking why Mark added "for all nations" but why Matthew omitted it.
Maybe, but it is much easier to explain most features of the gospels if Mark was written first. For example, Mark has neither the Lord's Prayer nor the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, he goes into much more detail about the pigs of Gerasene. You have to ask why Mark would omit two really important pieces of Christian theology but decides more is needed on pigs. Wouldn't it be more likely that Matthew and Luke would edit that story down and add the Semon on the Mount (or Plain) and the Lord's Prayer?
When I write posts here I usually waffle a lot and cut bits out to make them more concise afterwards. Maybe that's what Mark does with Matthew? I won't get stressed about it.
I heard the other day that Mark does have a sort of "Lord's Prayer". It's after Peter notices that the fig tree has withered. Jesus says, "have faith in God etc". See in particular Mark 11:25.
-
When I write posts here I usually waffle a lot and cut bits out to make them more concise afterwards. Maybe that's what Mark does with Matthew? I won't get stressed about it.
I heard the other day that Mark does have a sort of "Lord's Prayer". It's after Peter notices that the fig tree has withered. Jesus says, "have faith in God", particularly Mark 11:25.
Faith in god can often leave people up the creek without a paddle!
-
Faith in god can often leave people up the creek without a paddle!
When he also says "believe in your heart that what you ask will happen and it will happen", that doesn't mean what some people think. It does mean that for example, if Brexit is wrong then we should pray for God to overturn it, and he will (not necessarily now but at some point). Satan cannot unite the nations against the church during the millennium, which is now. Meaning God will not allow evil to triumph, so we can indeed pray confidently for something in line with his will.
-
Spud,
You’re missing the point still. Adding another detail to an existing story tells you nothing at all about whether or not that original story was true. Whether for example there ever was (or is) a “living God” isn’t elucidated by the bits Mark changed.
Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account, and in any case even if he was he would also have been prone to the risk of mistake. For something prosaic like throwing over the tables of the money lenders it doesn’t matter much, but when you want to claim miracles then it matters a lot.
No – see above.
This has no relevance to the basic problem – subsequent reporting and amendment tell you nothing about the veracity or otherwise of the story that’s been amended. Whether the later author was working to an agenda, just fancied adding a bit more colour, thought he was illuminating what he thought the characters to have intended or just made a transcription error doesn’t matter for that purpose.
Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.
-
When he also says "believe in your heart that what you ask will happen and it will happen", that doesn't mean what some people think. It does mean that for example, if Brexit is wrong then we should pray for God to overturn it, and he will (not necessarily now but at some point). Satan cannot unite the nations against the church during the millennium, which is now. Meaning God will not allow evil to triumph, so we can indeed pray confidently for something in line with his will.
Belief is god has done much more harm than belief in Satan.
-
Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.
No it doesn't, unless you allow this sort of thing for ALL.
You only think this gives a degree of confidence (which it does not) when it coincides with your beliefs. You would be quick to dismiss claims of equal uselessness if they supported some belief you do not share.
-
No it doesn't, unless you allow this sort of thing for ALL.
You only think this gives a degree of confidence (which it does not) when it coincides with your beliefs. You would be quick to dismiss claims of equal uselessness if they supported some belief you do not share.
Could you give some examples?
-
Could you give some examples?
Do you believe in alien abduction?
-
Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
How do you know that claims about ordinarily events are always recounted accurately?
Even if they are then they are just trivially true, and if not then it doesn't really matter very much. For example, if I claim that yesterday afternoon I motorcycled to a local supermarket (Tesco) and bought wine and coffee then in the great scheme of things it doesn't really matter much if I was lying: either way it isn't of major consequence whether I'm telling the truth or not.
However, if I then develop this account to add that while in Tesco I met someone who I knew to have died last year then the matter isn't quite so trivial any more: either I am wrong, and I have misunderstood or been misinformed so I need to check the details, or I am correct and that I did indeed encounter a dead person, and this would be a remarkable claim. I'd be surprised, Spud, that just because you believed my account of motorcycling to Tesco (which is actually true) you'd then conclude that my claim to have met a dead person must also be true just because you believed my true (but trivial) account about motorcycling to Tesco.
As Carl Sagan said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.
See above.
-
Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.
Plenty of people could describe a magic trick accurately from their point of view without realising it is a magic trick. The same people could, no doubt, describe ordinary events accurately. Why should this suggest that what they had seen was not a magic trick?
-
Spud,
Yes I get that.
But if you do get that, why suggest that changes to the story made by subsequent authors in some way had something to say to the veracity or otherwise of the original story?
Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.
Simple really. If there are lots of independent accounts of, say, what people had for breakfast, maybe someone has found an ancient bowl of cornflakes etc and the event itself was prosaic then there’s no particular reason to doubt the account. There could of course have been a comprehensive conspiracy to make us think they had cornflakes when in fact they had porridge – by planting lots of fake stories about cornflakes, hiding half-eaten bowls of cornflakes in caves etc – but in general there’d be no good reason to doubt the story “these people had cornflakes for breakfast”.
Now consider a miracle story that contradicts entirely everything we observe about the way the world works, that no-one wrote down at the time and was only eventually recorded decades later by people who weren’t there, that could be explained instead by various non-miraculous options, that occurred when supernatural answers of various sorts were considered credible and so were commonplace, and that even if they weren’t deliberately corrupted in the various re-tellings and translations could still be the result of honest mistake etc. Can you see now why there’d be very good reasons to doubt the veracity of the conclusion “it was a miracle” that you wouldn’t have to do for the story “we had cornflakes for breakfast”?
-
Spud,
He does mix up Luke, Matthew and John when talking about the feeding of 5000 and blindfolding episodes in an interview. But the points were otherwise accurate. Also it's tempting to interpret his points as arguments for definitive proof that the gospels are eyewitness testimony - which they are not.
Have a look at the quick answer boxes where he tries various arguments go for "god" and gets his basic reasoning wrong.
-
Thanks chaps, give me a second, there's one of me and several of you!
-
Spud,
But if you do get that, why suggest that changes to the story made by subsequent authors in some way had something to say to the veracity or otherwise of the original story?
You said, "Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account" - well, possibly there was copying between the evangelists but they may have used other written documents; it's fairly obvious though that the additional material supplied by each would have other witnesses as its source.
Now if this was an account of how Cleopatra committed suicide we would expect discrepancies as to the details, but if two sources agreed that her death was suicide then you would accept that as beyond reasonable doubt, since there were two accounts telling us that. We have four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, two of which give details that suggest that the event did happen (whether miraculous or not). Those were, Jesus asking Philip where they could buy food, and Philip and Andrew both answering; also Luke supplying the information that these two were from the town at which it happened, which makes sense of why they were singled out by the author of John.
In other words, we believe with a reasonable degree of certainty that Cleopatra committed suicide. If the evangelists wanted to convey a lesson in the actions of Jesus in the temple or with the 5000, then the fact that they all include the story is significant and suggests a higher likelihood of truth.
Simple really. If there are lots of independent accounts of, say, what people had for breakfast, maybe someone has found an ancient bowl of cornflakes etc and the event itself was prosaic then there’s no particular reason to doubt the account. There could of course have been a comprehensive conspiracy to make us think they had cornflakes when in fact they had porridge – by planting lots of fake stories about cornflakes, hiding half-eaten bowls of cornflakes in caves etc – but in general there’d be no good reason to doubt the story “these people had cornflakes for breakfast”.
Great example, which shows why we can't prove the miracles of Jesus happened.
Now consider a miracle story that contradicts entirely everything we observe about the way the world works, that no-one wrote down at the time
Point of order: we don't know that. and was only eventually recorded decades later by people who weren’t there
POO - they were written within the generation that witnessed it, see Paul's reference to the 500 who were still alive and his reference to the Lord's supper, the resurrection appearances, that could be explained instead by various non-miraculous options, that occurred when supernatural answers of various sorts were considered credible and so were commonplace, and that even if they weren’t deliberately corrupted in the various re-tellings and translations could still be the result of honest mistake etc. Can you see now why there’d be very good reasons to doubt the veracity of the conclusion “it was a miracle” that you wouldn’t have to do for the story “we had cornflakes for breakfast”?
Point noted. One answer is that there were many many miracles described in detail, so if they were actually corrupted forms of original events then this has taken place on a very large scale. Is that likely to have happened through the process you describe?
Also, could anyone be clever enough to invent the miracle stories, getting all most of the ordinary geographical and temporal, cultural and historical details correct at the same time?
Or were they simply recording accurately what they saw or were told had been seen?
-
I wonder at want point an independent observer becomes a bias observer when their view becomes opposed to one's own.
-
No it doesn't, unless you allow this sort of thing for ALL.
You only think this gives a degree of confidence (which it does not) when it coincides with your beliefs. You would be quick to dismiss claims of equal uselessness if they supported some belief you do not share.
Thanks BR, the example isn't quite appropriate as it's not miraculous.
-
Thanks BR, the example isn't quite appropriate as it's not miraculous.
That should make it easier to believe!
Do you just believe anything as long as it is a miracle?
I was dead for 3 days once and came back to life. Do you believe that?
-
Spud,
You said, "Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account" - well, possibly there was copying between the evangelists but they may have used other written documents; it's fairly obvious though that the additional material supplied by each would have other witnesses as its source.
Several problems there. First, that’s not fairly obvious at all. If they weren’t just fabricated ad hoc then “other written documents” must have come from somewhere, and you have no way of telling whether that somewhere is a multiply re-told account from one witness or from several. Second, even if there was more than one witness unless those witnesses and their stories were somehow made not to comingle after the event (standard police practice by the way – that’s why they don’t let witnesses confer) then you have no way of knowing whether any one version influenced any another. Third, you’re still stuck with the basic problem that even if one or more than one person sincerely thought they saw a miracle, there’d be no way to know that one of the other possible (but less thrilling) explanations for what actually happed wasn’t the real one. Fourth…well, you get the picture by now I’m sure.
Now if this was an account of how Cleopatra committed suicide we would expect discrepancies as to the details, but if two sources agreed that her death was suicide then you would accept that as beyond reasonable doubt, since there were two accounts telling us that.
But only if the accounts were independent of each other, and besides suicide is a (tragic but) unremarkable real world occurrence. Unwittingly, that’s quite a helpful analogy though – there’s generally considered enough evidence to think that Cleopatra existed, and that she probably committed suicide too. There isn’t though enough evidence to treat the asp story as historically accurate so it’s treated as myth. Now imagine that the story was that she committed suicide by being eaten by a dragon or some other supernatural cause – how much better still would the evidence have to be for that story to be treated as nothing but a myth too do you think?
We have four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, two of which give details that suggest that the event did happen (whether miraculous or not). Those were, Jesus asking Philip where they could buy food, and Philip and Andrew both answering; also Luke supplying the information that these two were from the town at which it happened, which makes sense of why they were singled out by the author of John.
That “whether miraculous or not” is rather important here don’t you think? If the story was just “Jesus got the caterers in” that’d be interesting but having more than one witness wouldn’t matter much. Think cornflakes for breakfast again. If though the story was “Then Jesus performed a miracle” you be back to same problems of non-conferring witnesses, non-co-mingling stories, elimination of other explanations, honest mistake etc.
In other words, we believe with a reasonable degree of certainty that Cleopatra committed suicide.
Yes, but not with reasonable certainty that an asp did it, let alone that a supernatural agency was in play. “Cleopatra killed herself” is no more remarkable than, “people had cornflakes for breakfast” so there’s no particular reason to doubt the story.
If the evangelists wanted to convey a lesson in the actions of Jesus in the temple or with the 5000, then the fact that they all include the story is significant and suggests a higher likelihood of truth.
No it doesn’t – see above. “The story” is fine when it’s throwing over a few tables, but you need an awful lot more than “fine” when the supposed explanation for an event is “it’s a miracle”.
Great example, which shows why we can't prove the miracles of Jesus happened.
Or even think they were more likely to have happened than the non-miraculous alternative explanations for them. That’s your problem.
Point of order: we don't know that.
Yes we do. Everything we’ve ever observed, investigated and validated about the world is naturalistic in nature. If you want to posit a non-natural that’s fine, but you have all your work ahead of the you to validate that claim, or even to indicate how you’d validate it.
POO - they were written within the generation that witnessed it, see Paul's reference to the 500 who were still alive and his reference to the Lord's supper, the resurrection appearances,
I was referring to the resurrection story, and “a generation” is decades.
Point noted. One answer is that there were many many miracles described in detail, so if they were actually corrupted forms of original events then this has taken place on a very large scale. Is that likely to have happened through the process you describe?
There were many, many more miracles than you realise when you include the miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra etc. All that tells you though is that your and these other miracle stories came from more credulous times. How does that help you?
Also, could anyone be clever enough to invent the miracle stories, getting all most of the ordinary geographical and temporal, cultural and historical details correct at the same time?
No-one would have need to invent them in the sense you imply. Rather reaching for explanations that satisfied what they thought they saw would have been good enough. Some caught the wind and are believed to this day (at least by some people); others have been relegated to that status of myth and fable. There’s no reason to think though that the “winners” won because of anything inherently more credible about them than the losers. Had Constantine chosen a different religion rather than Christianity for example, no doubt to this day people like you would be talking approvingly about the miracles of Poseidon and differently about the myths of Jesus.
Or were they simply recording accurately what they saw or were told had been seen?
Again, you can’t record an explanation – you can record an event, but the explanation for it is only the narrative that makes most sense to you at the time using the methods and tools available to you.
-
No-one would have need to invent them in the sense you imply. Rather reaching for explanations that satisfied what they thought they saw would have been good enough. Some caught the wind and are believed to this day (at least by some people); others have been relegated to that status of myth and fable.
So the winddidit…..did it?
I recall a scene in Airplane when all manner of representatives of diverse groups are lining up to slap an hysteric and find myself lined up with Darwinians, those who make a great play on science 'working' to give this thesis the going over it urgently deserves.
Firstly Christianity would survive because it is a good fit for many people, not only straddling cultures, but centuries and yes, civilisations. It also works. I would add that it is comprehensive providing not only a successful theology but also anthropology.
See how well an argument for it merely 'catching the wind' fares against Darwinianism, functionality and an argument for Christianity having a satisfying and successful psychology, anthropology, theology and philosophy into which previous insights can be folded.
-
Survivorship bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
-
Survivorship bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
OK I'm in. The citation starts thus:
''Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process''
Concentrating: In what form does this concentration take? Are failures excluded? Are old religions never focussed on in anyway? Are you recommending by implication that it is illogical for Doctor' to overlook shamanic medicine men in favour of modern therapies?
Selection process: Could that not be Darwinian or other valid process? How does that fit in with logical error. In what way do fossils not concentrated on or dinosaurs not loved?
''and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways.''
What false conclusions?
-
Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try :)
-
Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try :)
You mean just like your God.
-
Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try :)
Just like the god featured in the Bible.
-
Spud,
Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try
Let’s see whether you can work out for yourself where you’ve gone wrong here. I’ll give you some clues though:
First, you argue that the miracle stories in a book mean that your god must be real.
In reply I explain that there are lots of miracle stories from lots of faith beliefs that are no less well-evidenced than your own.
You then respond by telling me that the those gods are just made up, whereas yours…
OK, enough clues I think. Let me know when you see the problem here.
-
Just like the god featured in the Bible.
We're looking for a human who is claimed to have performed miracles. The circumstances must be recorded in detail and and as much of these as possible verified by current research, eg locations (like small villages) or climate, culture, geography.They must date to no later than a few decades of the miracles taking place.
-
Spud,
We're looking for a human who is claimed to have performed miracles.
There are plenty to choose from.
The circumstances must be recorded in detail and and as much of these as possible verified by current research, eg locations (like small villages) or climate, culture, geography.They must date to no later than a few decades of the miracles taking place.
Quite a few of those too, though of course however accurate the location etc are recorded that tells you nothing whatever about whether or not actual miracles took place there. And that’s your problem still.
Incidentally the culture bit will backfire on you when you realise that the culture entailed people readily believing miracle stories of all sorts and from multiple sources because that’s all they had at the time in place of more robust explanations for the phenomena they observed.
-
We're looking for a human who is claimed to have performed miracles. The circumstances must be recorded in detail and and as much of these as possible verified by current research, eg locations (like small villages) or climate, culture, geography.They must date to no later than a few decades of the miracles taking place.
That scam merchant Benny Hinn claims to have performed miracles, just as have many others of his ilk! >:(
-
Spud,
There are plenty to choose from.
So I looked up miracles of Buddha and found that no records exist until about 300 years after he supposedly did. Do you have anything that beats this?
Quite a few of those too, though of course however accurate the location etc are recorded that tells you nothing whatever about whether or not actual miracles took place there. And that’s your problem still.
Getting details about circumatances right suggests that the authors wouldn't make mistakes when it comes to details of miracles.
That leaves us with deliberate fabrication and legend. Well, the gospels are too early to be legends. Later pseudo-gospels (which I haven't studied) apparently have much less circumstantial detail, such as names of places and people. This is characteristic of legend. As for fabrication: taken on its own, carefully fabricated gospels containing made-up miracles would be simple to diagnose, as at least one of the evangelists or diaciples would be likely to admit he had made it up, if under pressure. Combine the two
however (much detail plus not admitting to making them up) and you have a much stronger case for genuine miracles.
Incidentally the culture bit will backfire on you when you realise that the culture entailed people readily believing miracle stories of all sorts and from multiple sources because that’s all they had at the time in place of more robust explanations for the phenomena they observed.
Go back and read the description of the miracles and tell me they are magic tricks!
-
So I looked up miracles of Buddha and found that no records exist until about 300 years after he supposedly did. Do you have anything that beats this?Getting details about circumatances right suggests that the authors wouldn't make mistakes when it comes to details of miracles.
That leaves us with deliberate fabrication and legend. Well, the gospels are too early to be legends. Later pseudo-gospels (which I haven't studied) apparently have much less circumstantial detail, such as names of places and people. This is characteristic of legend. As for fabrication: taken on its own, carefully fabricated gospels containing made-up miracles would be simple to diagnose, as at least one of the evangelists or diaciples would be likely to admit he had made it up, if under pressure. Combine the two
however (much detail plus not admitting to making them up) and you have a much stronger case for genuine miracles.
Go back and read the description of the miracles and tell me they are magic tricks!
Satya said baba reportedly was reincarnated and performed various miracles.
Eye witnesses of the miracles are alive today that you could speak to.
I am sure they are convinced they were not magic tricks.
-
BR, his miracles have apparently been shown to be tricks.
-
BR, his miracles have apparently been shown to be tricks.
...and if it could be shown that Jesus miracles could be replicated as tricks?
-
Spud,
So I looked up miracles of Buddha and found that no records exist until about 300 years after he supposedly did. Do you have anything that beats this?
So you’re proposing that 30-odd years after the event must be spot on, whereas 300 years won’t be? Seriously? Seems a bit odd don’t you think given that a group of a just a few people playing a game of Chinese whispers get it wrong after just a few minutes of re-telling?
Getting details about circumatances right suggests that the authors wouldn't make mistakes when it comes to details of miracles.
Don’t be daft. “At 2.30pm on the corner of Pilgrim Way and Supplicant Street Fred saw a miracle” tells you nothing at all about whether Fred saw an actual miracle rather than just thought he did even though the time and address may be spot on.
That leaves us with deliberate fabrication and legend.
And honest mistake remember?
Well, the gospels are too early to be legends. Later pseudo-gospels (which I haven't studied) apparently have much less circumstantial detail, such as names of places and people. This is characteristic of legend. As for fabrication: taken on its own, carefully fabricated gospels containing made-up miracles would be simple to diagnose, as at least one of the evangelists or diaciples would be likely to admit he had made it up, if under pressure. Combine the two
however (much detail plus not admitting to making them up) and you have a much stronger case for genuine miracles.
No you don’t. You have no case at all in fact, at least that is unless you’ve found a way to validate what the alleged witnesses thought they saw by way of an explanation.
Go back and read the description of the miracles and tell me they are magic tricks!
Fairly straightforwardly I’d have thought, but that’s not my job. You’re the one who claims that deliberate trickery (and all the other possible non-miraculous explanations) have been “eliminated”, so it’s your job to demonstrate that. It’s called the burden of proof. All I have to do though is to suggest the other ways the accounts could have come about – a trivially easy thing to do.
-
BR, his miracles have apparently been shown to be tricks.
Not to his followers.
Perhaps if Jesus tried his tricks today we are more aware of them and he would be found out as well?
-
Not to his followers.
Perhaps if Jesus tried his tricks today we are more aware of them and he would be found out as well?
That would probably be the case.
-
Not to his followers.
Perhaps if Jesus tried his tricks today we are more aware of them and he would be found out as well?
No.
Because his followers want him to have magic powers, they will ignore the evidence. They will insist that lesser conjurers could do the trick, but the way Jesus does it is special and can't be replicated.
-
No.
Because his followers want him to have magic powers, they will ignore the evidence. They will insist that lesser conjurers could do the trick, but the way Jesus does it is special and can't be replicated.
I agree, and that is why I think the followers is Sathya sai baba do not think he was using trickery.
-
Spud,
So you’re proposing that 30-odd years after the event must be spot on, whereas 300 years won’t be? Seriously? Seems a bit odd don’t you think given that a group of a just a few people playing a game of Chinese whispers get it wrong after just a few minutes of re-telling?
The difference is that 30 years (if that much) is low enough that the claims could be refuted by people who were there.
I'm not sure the apostles whispered their message to people?
Don’t be daft. “At 2.30pm on the corner of Pilgrim Way and Supplicant Street Fred saw a miracle” tells you nothing at all about whether Fred saw an actual miracle rather than just thought he did even though the time and address may be spot on.
It does tell us that the witness would be able to describe what he saw accurately, though. Of course that on its own doesn't eliminate the possibility of dishonesty or illusion. If other people witnessed it, and if those people kept to their story under duress and while separated from other witnesses, the case is strengthened. I don't claim that it completely proves miracles took place.
And honest mistake remember?
True that is possible, but there are other factors to take into consideration, as above. We find that rather than people coming forward to refute that people had been healed in an instant, they argued about the source of Jesus' power. Plus there are other pieces of information, such as the empty tomb, that strengthen the disciples' claims.
No you don’t. You have no case at all in fact, at least that is unless you’ve found a way to validate what the alleged witnesses thought they saw by way of an explanation.
Fairly straightforwardly I’d have thought, but that’s not my job. You’re the one who claims that deliberate trickery (and all the other possible non-miraculous explanations) have been “eliminated”, so it’s your job to demonstrate that. It’s called the burden of proof. All I have to do though is to suggest the other ways the accounts could have come about – a trivially easy thing to do.
-
The difference is that 30 years (if that much) is low enough that the claims could be refuted by people who were there.
I'm not sure the apostles whispered their message to people?
It does tell us that the witness would be able to describe what he saw accurately, though. Of course that on its own doesn't eliminate the possibility of dishonesty or illusion. If other people witnessed it, and if those people kept to their story under duress and while separated from other witnesses, the case is strengthened. I don't claim that it completely proves miracles took place.
True that is possible, but there are other factors to take into consideration, as above. We find that rather than people coming forward to refute that people had been healed in an instant, they argued about the source of Jesus' power. Plus there are other pieces of information, such as the empty tomb, that strengthen the disciples' claims.
Eye witness testimonies about less than credible events, are not reliable.
-
Eye witness testimonies about less than credible events, are not reliable.
That doesn't really make sense. People can give reliable eyewitness testimonies, or in the days before CCTV no-one would ever have been convicted of anything. What you mean is that sub-credible events cannot happen, and so anyone claiming to witness one must be unreliable. But if a group of witnesses is reliable in all other details, they must be "reliable", unless you make the assumption that all events always obey the laws of nature.
-
That doesn't really make sense. People can give reliable eyewitness testimonies, or in the days before CCTV no-one would ever have been convicted of anything. What you mean is that sub-credible events cannot happen, and so anyone claiming to witness one must be unreliable. But if a group of witnesses is reliable in all other details, they must be "reliable", unless you make the assumption that all events always obey the laws of nature.
Eye witness evidence is the worst evidence you can have .
Do you believe the eye witness testimonies for Sathya sai baba?
If not why not as you could speak to these eye witnesses today.
-
Spud,
That doesn't really make sense. People can give reliable eyewitness testimonies, or in the days before CCTV no-one would ever have been convicted of anything. What you mean is that sub-credible events cannot happen, and so anyone claiming to witness one must be unreliable. But if a group of witnesses is reliable in all other details, they must be "reliable", unless you make the assumption that all events always obey the laws of nature.
Like a reliable eyewitness testimony about someone on stage being sawn in half and joined together again you mean?
-
Spud,
Like a reliable eyewitness testimony about someone on stage being sawn in half and joined together again you mean?
No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.
-
Eye witness evidence is the worst evidence you can have .
Do you believe the eye witness testimonies for Sathya sai baba?
If not why not as you could speak to these eye witnesses today.
No, because from what I've read about them they are either healings that are not miracles in the supernatural sense (eg back pain being cured in a few seconds which happens sometimes) or gold rings appearing in his hand and being given away, which most magicians can do, especially magicians worth 5 billion.
-
No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.
Nobody saw Jesus get resurrected.
-
No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.
So the story goes, Spud: do you think there is any possibility that this is propaganda for Jesus?
People tell lies and get things wrong you know, so would you agree that anyone accepting the details of the Jesus resurrection story, and who seeks to convince others or contend that the story is true, rather than keeping their views on it private, should consider it important to assess these risks?
-
No, because from what I've read about them they are either healings that are not miracles in the supernatural sense (eg back pain being cured in a few seconds which happens sometimes) or gold rings appearing in his hand and being given away, which most magicians can do, especially magicians worth 5 billion.
So why do the eye witnesses not think like you do.
You have no idea about the claimed miracles performed by Jesus, as they are just claims. There are no eye witnesses, and they could have been just as deceived.
Why do you only believe the claims that match your bias?
-
Spud,
No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.
But I did see the woman sawn in half – honest injun! She was right there in front of me, then she was put in a box and sawn in two, then – and get this! – the chap behind her actually wheeled the boxes apart! Next thing I knew, the boxes were pushed together and out she jumped! See? I saw it with my own eyes so there you go then – a genuine, 24 carat miracle right?
Assume for now that I’m 100% honest. Can you see the problem here? No matter how honest I am, the explanatory story I told myself about what I’d seen was very different from what I’d actually seen – or, more accurately, to what I’d not been allowed to see.
Have you noticed that when conjurors do tricks there’s often an elaborate set-up, then just for a bit a curtain is pulled around them, then the curtain’s dropped, et voilà – the big reveal as miraculously they're out of the box!
Now have a think about the resurrection “miracle”. Someone bedraggled and covered in blood who appeared to be Jesus was crucified and appeared to be dead. Then he disappeared for three days (that’s the curtain bit), after which someone who appeared to be Jesus was seen walking around again. It’s the classic model for a conjuror – the big set-up, the hiding from the audience, the big reveal. Add a (completely honest) witness who’s account was (much later) written down and it’s job done.
Now just for fun, let’s say that I was a real man/god and I wanted to show that I could be dead for a bit then alive again. Easy right – just have, say, my head chopped off then handed to me then I’d re-attach it. Not much room for error or deception there right? Or, if I wanted to be a bit less showy-offy about it maybe just have a leg chopped off then grow it back in front of people’s eyes. Shouldn’t be hard for someone who could do the “dead then alive again” number right?
But no, that’s not what he did at all. What he actually seems to have done was the classic conjuror’s trope – “watch this, watch this, watch this”/disappear for a bit/”ta-daaaa!” – and there it was. Seems a strange modus operandi don’t you think for someone who wanted to persuade the non-credulous as well as the credulous of his bona fides?
-
Seeing isn't always believing, as I know for a fact from my own strange experiences.
-
Floo,
Seeing isn't always believing, as I know for a fact from my own strange experiences.
Actually seeing often is believing, and that's the problem because what people believe they see and what they actually see can be very different. That's why for example police identity parades are so unreliable.
-
Floo,
Actually seeing often is believing, and that's the problem because what people believe they see and what they actually see can be very different. That's why for example police identity parades are so unreliable.
I agree that many people don't question what they see. I have had some very weird experiences since I came into this world. As a child I accepted them, but as a mature adult I question the things I have seen looking for a natural, rather than a supernatural explanation.
-
Floo,
I agree that many people don't question what they see. I have had some very weird experiences since I came into this world. As a child I accepted them, but as a mature adult I question the things I have seen looking for a natural, rather than a supernatural explanation.
How many jumps do the girls wearing green make?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiEzf3J4iFk
-
Floo,
How many jumps do the girls wearing green make?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiEzf3J4iFk
I zoned out very quickly as there was so much going on.
-
Floo,
How many jumps do the girls wearing green make?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiEzf3J4iFk
I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.
What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.
It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.
-
Prof,
I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.
What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.
It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.
Quite so. It's worse than that though. In, say, a street scene where a crime is committed it's hard enough to remember everything. In a conjuring trick though the conjuror deliberately misdirects his audience to look in the wrong place - "here, here - look over here" etc while the real deal goes on either out of sight or (as with the chicken) hidden in plain sight.
This is not to say by the way that the resurrection story was necessarily a trick but it is to say that it was constructed as a trick would have been, and moreover that a trick is just one of several plausible (but non-miraculous) explanations. And that for a rationalist sceptic is all that's necessary to conclude that there's not a good reason to accept the miracle story.
-
I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.
What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.
It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.
What I found interesting about the video is not that I missed the chicken even though I was pretty sure they were going to pull a trick like that, but when the two girls in black started skipping (the ones who had previously been holding the rope), I knew there was something wrong. My brain was telling me "this is not right, these people have come from nowhere", but I couldn't put my finger on the issue.
As regards oral tradition, we absolutely know it is not as wonderful as Christians would have us believe. The Epic of Sundiata was transmitted orally for hundreds of years and there are several versions extant today as a result of its "evolution". We also have the example of the gospels themselves. Why is John's gospel so different from the synoptics if the oral tradition that led up to them is so reliable?
The other problem of oral tradition, even if it could be demonstrated to be reliable is that people often make changes deliberately. No amount of accuracy is going to help if one person in the chain deliberately embellishes the story for effect. Look at the gospels. How many people meet the women at the tomb? Is it one man, two men, an angel or two angels? Answer: it's all of these depending on which gospel you read. You can't argue that the early Christians were careful not to fall foul of the Chinese whispers effect because they obviously did. The evidence is right there in the gospels.
-
What I found interesting about the video is not that I missed the chicken even though I was pretty sure they were going to pull a trick like that, but when the two girls in black started skipping (the ones who had previously been holding the rope), I knew there was something wrong. My brain was telling me "this is not right, these people have come from nowhere", but I couldn't put my finger on the issue.
As regards oral tradition, we absolutely know it is not as wonderful as Christians would have us believe. The Epic of Sundiata was transmitted orally for hundreds of years and there are several versions extant today as a result of its "evolution". We also have the example of the gospels themselves. Why is John's gospel so different from the synoptics if the oral tradition that led up to them is so reliable?
The other problem of oral tradition, even if it could be demonstrated to be reliable is that people often make changes deliberately. No amount of accuracy is going to help if one person in the chain deliberately embellishes the story for effect. Look at the gospels. How many people meet the women at the tomb? Is it one man, two men, an angel or two angels? Answer: it's all of these depending on which gospel you read. You can't argue that the early Christians were careful not to fall foul of the Chinese whispers effect because they obviously did. The evidence is right there in the gospels.
Oral transmission of information is inherently less reliable than, for example, in writing where you know what is read is what was written. That isn't going to change how every much christian theists wish it to be so.
What is probably the case is that people in oral tradition cultures were more accurate in their oral transmission than people in non-oral cultures when also using oral transmission. They will have tricks and traditions, such as song, story telling etc that we don't have so much. But none of that means that the accuracy of transmission via an oral tradition over decades and centuries, compared to the original source, is anything other than pants.
-
They will have tricks and traditions, such as song, story telling etc that we don't have so much. But none of that means that the accuracy of transmission via an oral tradition over decades and centuries, compared to the original source, is anything other than pants.
Yes and also, if one story teller in the chain decides that the story needs spicing up with a giant or some gods or a resurrection, none of these tricks will stop that from happening.
-
Yes and also, if one story teller in the chain decides that the story needs spicing up with a giant or some gods or a resurrection, none of these tricks will stop that from happening.
Exactly and you can never see the embellishment - unlike on written transmission where a quick bit of version checking will establish the additions.
-
Exactly and you can never see the embellishment - unlike on written transmission where a quick bit of version checking will establish the additions.
The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.
-
The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.
Gibberish
-
Spud,
But I did see the woman sawn in half – honest injun! She was right there in front of me, then she was put in a box and sawn in two, then – and get this! – the chap behind her actually wheeled the boxes apart! Next thing I knew, the boxes were pushed together and out she jumped! See? I saw it with my own eyes so there you go then – a genuine, 24 carat miracle right?
Assume for now that I’m 100% honest. Can you see the problem here? No matter how honest I am, the explanatory story I told myself about what I’d seen was very different from what I’d actually seen – or, more accurately, to what I’d not been allowed to see.
Have you noticed that when conjurors do tricks there’s often an elaborate set-up, then just for a bit a curtain is pulled around them, then the curtain’s dropped, et voilà – the big reveal as miraculously they're out of the box!
Now have a think about the resurrection “miracle”. Someone bedraggled and covered in blood who appeared to be Jesus was crucified and appeared to be dead. Then he disappeared for three days (that’s the curtain bit), after which someone who appeared to be Jesus was seen walking around again. It’s the classic model for a conjuror – the big set-up, the hiding from the audience, the big reveal. Add a (completely honest) witness who’s account was (much later) written down and it’s job done.
Now just for fun, let’s say that I was a real man/god and I wanted to show that I could be dead for a bit then alive again. Easy right – just have, say, my head chopped off then handed to me then I’d re-attach it. Not much room for error or deception there right? Or, if I wanted to be a bit less showy-offy about it maybe just have a leg chopped off then grow it back in front of people’s eyes. Shouldn’t be hard for someone who could do the “dead then alive again” number right?
But no, that’s not what he did at all. What he actually seems to have done was the classic conjuror’s trope – “watch this, watch this, watch this”/disappear for a bit/”ta-daaaa!” – and there it was. Seems a strange modus operandi don’t you think for someone who wanted to persuade the non-credulous as well as the credulous of his bona fides?
Regarding your first point, the woman in the box is not visible. You don't see her die, nor do you see blood pouring out. That's the difference.
Re your follow up point, imagine instead you're in the front line of the Somme and your buddy who you've spent the last six weeks getting to know is shot dead next to you. You then know that firstly he is dead and secondly you know his identity. That's more like what we find in the gospels than a Jesus look-alike being killed.
-
Spud,
The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.
Of course they're full of miracles - lots of texts from lots of traditions are. Miracles were widely adduced to explain everything from rainbows to milk turning onto yoghurt. But you don't know though that the later versions were the same as the originals verbatim, and even if you did so what? You'd still be stuck with the problem of the first supposed witness recording what he actually saw rather than wheat he believed he saw.
-
The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles.
That is an assumption based on faith, with no evidence to back it up. Anyone can claim their book is divinely inspired and therefore the fantastic claims therein must be true. But claiming as such doesn't make it so, Spud.
-
Spud,
Regarding your first point, the woman in the box is not visible. You don't see her die, nor do you see blood pouring out. That's the difference.
You’re missing the point still. I did “see her “die” every but as much as the bible witness saw Jesus die. Dying was the explanation each of us arrived at having seen what we saw (and in my case my magician could easily have had a fake blood capsule involved if he’d wanted to). Neither of us had the access or the means though to ascertain whether the person we thought we’d seen die actually was dead, and as he and she were whisked away pretty sharpish after the set-up that was the end of our involvement until the big reveal later on.
Re your follow up point, imagine instead you're in the front line of the Somme and your buddy who you've spent the last six weeks getting to know is shot dead next to you. You then know that firstly he is dead and secondly you know his identity. That's more like what we find in the gospels than a Jesus look-alike being killed.
So now you’re claiming that not only was Jesus well-known enough to the anonymous witness to be certainly recognisable at a distance and covered in blood, but that this supposed witness also had the means to distinguish a limp body that was actually dead from one that appeared to be dead but may not have been?
You’re making some pretty big claims and guesses there old son.
Oh, and does the fact of the whole episode being set up just as a conjuring trick would be – attention and misdirection on the event on stage, disappearing for a bit, big reveal – trouble you even one tiny little jot? Nothing?
-
Regarding your first point, the woman in the box is not visible. You don't see her die, nor do you see blood pouring out. That's the difference.
Re your follow up point, imagine instead you're in the front line of the Somme and your buddy who you've spent the last six weeks getting to know is shot dead next to you. You then know that firstly he is dead and secondly you know his identity. That's more like what we find in the gospels than a Jesus look-alike being killed.
But you don't know that any of this is true and actually happened - you are simply relying on non-neutral recounting of event that appeared decades later, without clear attribution nor corroboration. It is worth noting that it is generally considered that the earliest 'resurrection' accounts (the original Mark account) had nothing other than the finding of an empty tomb - no visions, no appearances of a resurrected Jesus. Now of course there are many perfectly plausible reasons why a tomb might be discovered to be empty - none involve a dead man coming back to life 3 days after his death.
But no doubt that account wasn't compelling enough for the intended audience so a little extra needed to be added, and a bit more and so on, until apparently he was appearing to 500 people at once. But the hyperbole betrays itself - if a dead man had really appeared to so many people do you really think the Romans and the Jewish authorities (assiduous record keeper both) would have not noted this whatsoever. Implausible in the extreme.
-
The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.
If that’s true, all it shows is that the Apostles were not beyond making things up.
It’s not true, of course, because your claim of Apostolic authority has no basis in fact.
-
I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.
What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.
It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.
People can pick out one or two details accurately, however much more they miss.
If there are multiple witnesses who notice different details you can build up a more composite picture, and that's what we get with the gospels.
-
Spud,
People can pick out one or two details accurately, however much more they miss.
If there are multiple witnesses who notice different details you can build up a more composite picture, and that's what we get with the gospels.
Just like you do at a magic show then.
-
People can pick out one or two details accurately, however much more they miss.
If there are multiple witnesses who notice different details you can build up a more composite picture, and that's what we get with the gospels.
Even if they were witnesses, it doesn't mean that what they claimed to have seen had any credibility. It is much more likely the gospel writers created the stories surrounding Jesus well after he was dead and gone.
-
If there are multiple witnesses who notice different details you can build up a more composite picture, and that's what we get with the gospels.
No it isn’t. There’s no evidence that the gospels are based on any eye witness accounts.
-
Hi jeremyp, Thanks for your post.
Surely the forensic style of the text itself and its accurate historical and geograhical detail is evidence that much of the Fourth Gospel is based on eye witness reports?
In particular, chapters 18 and 19 appear to be the personal eye witness report of the writer himself - not the Beloved Disciple (as alleged by Irenaeus), but a Roman official resident in Jerusalem at that time.
Each of the other narratives appear to based on a specific witness, eg Nathanael in the case of the two miracles at Cana, Nicodemus in the case of information about the Pharisees, etc
God bless
-
As long as those questioning the total corpus of the gospel apply there theories to the total corpus of history.I have no problem with them.I doubt though they are that rigourous or in fact particularly bothered about history.Those who have spoken about Bronze age goatherders and old books certainly aren't.........Modern age turdherders.
-
No it isn’t. There’s no evidence that the gospels are based on any eye witness accounts.
Not even John 20:4?
Even if they were witnesses, it doesn't mean that what they claimed to have seen had any credibility. It is much more likely the gospel writers created the stories surrounding Jesus well after he was dead and gone.
The likelihood of that is also zero, as most of them were martyred, and people don't die for something they know to be a lie.
All the possible explanations, have likelihoods of zero.
-
The likelihood of that is also zero, as most of them were martyred, and people don't die for something they know to be a lie.
Just no, Spud: nobody has said that those martyred, or who knowingly killed themselves, for a cause think their cause to be a lie - they may well have sincerely believed their cause to be true and/or just.
That may say something about them, but it says nothing about the truth or justness of what they believed.
-
Hi jeremyp, Thanks for your post.
Surely the forensic style of the text itself and its accurate historical and geograhical detail is evidence that much of the Fourth Gospel is based on eye witness reports?
In particular, chapters 18 and 19 appear to be the personal eye witness report of the writer himself - not the Beloved Disciple (as alleged by Irenaeus), but a Roman official resident in Jerusalem at that time.
Each of the other narratives appear to based on a specific witness, eg Nathanael in the case of the two miracles at Cana, Nicodemus in the case of information about the Pharisees, etc
God bless
Not sure what you mean by this part of the NT being 'forensic', but even if some of reports in it are geographically accurate or referred to real people, and could reasonably be regarded as being true, albeit trivially true since it wouldn't matter much if they were false, but even if these reports are true it doesn't follow that other related reports that claimed supernatural miracles can also be reasonably regarded as being true, since what is being claimed now isn't trivial.
For example: it is true that, as usual, I took my 3 year-old granddaughter swimming last Wednesday morning, though it wouldn't matter much if I was lying, but even if you accepted the truth of that claim I doubt that if I also said that while swimming I saw the ghost of a dead relative you'd accept that just as easily as you'd accept my claim to have gone swimming. I'd imagine that you'd at least consider that I could be honestly wrong or could be telling a lie, and that for the claim of seeing a ghost you'd require a higher standard of evidence than you'd accept for a trivial claim of having gone swimming.
-
Just no, Spud: nobody has said that those martyred, or who knowingly killed themselves, for a cause think their cause to be a lie - they may well have sincerely believed their cause to be true and/or just.
That may say something about them, but it says nothing about the truth or justness of what they believed.
I was replying to floo's comment that the authors made the stories up. If that was the case then they did not believe their stories to be true, and would not maintain those stories' truth when under duress.
Your comment takes the view that they were mistaken - that Jesus somehow tricked them into thinking they witnessed miracles. This is equally unlikely, as in order for him to deceive the masses the disciples would have had to be complicit in the deception, which means they would know it was fake and then you are back to the answer I gave floo. The Indian magician berational mentioned wasn't able to perform his tricks without help from his assistants. Same would apply for Jesus.
-
Your comment takes the view that they were mistaken - that Jesus somehow tricked them into thinking they witnessed miracles. This is equally unlikely, as in order for him to deceive the masses the disciples would have had to be complicit in the deception, which means they would know it was fake and then you are back to the answer I gave floo. The Indian magician berational mentioned wasn't able to perform his tricks without help from his assistants. Same would apply for Jesus.
Nope: I'm not making assumptions about tricks or mistakes.
My position is simply this: since those, such as yourself, who are advancing the proposal that the NT accounts of miracles involving Jesus are factually true based on the anecdotal accounts in the NT seem unable to show how they've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies, which are known human traits, in these accounts so that these risks are shown to be minimal, then I can see no basis to conclude that the accounts or miracles in the NT are a serious proposition - since, as things stand, these accounts seem to be indistinguishable from fiction.
The burden of proof remains yours, Spud.
-
I was replying to floo's comment that the authors made the stories up. If that was the case then they did not believe their stories to be true, and would not maintain those stories' truth when under duress.
Your comment takes the view that they were mistaken - that Jesus somehow tricked them into thinking they witnessed miracles. This is equally unlikely, as in order for him to deceive the masses the disciples would have had to be complicit in the deception, which means they would know it was fake and then you are back to the answer I gave floo. The Indian magician berational mentioned wasn't able to perform his tricks without help from his assistants. Same would apply for Jesus.
I am of the opinion the gospel writers exaggerated the life of Jesus to fit in with the so called 'prophecies'. All these centuries later it is hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff where they are concerned. But I am pretty certain the things recorded about Jesus, which aren't credible, didn't actually happen. Matthew 27v 51-53 claims the moment Jesus died the curtain in the Temple was torn, and tombs of the faithful were opened and they came back to life. One has to be pretty gullible to believe that to be true!
-
Spud,
The likelihood of that is also zero, as most of them were martyred, and people don't die for something they know to be a lie.
But lots of people over the ages have martyred themselves for belief and causes they sincerely thought to be true but weren’t true at all. Relying on the motivation of the people concerned doesn’t help you at all.
All the possible explanations, have likelihoods of zero.
Of course they haven’t. There are several I can think of right off the bat, and you have no possible basis to assert them (and any others I haven’t thought of) to have a likelihood of zero. You might judge them unlikely, difficult to imagine, hard to pull off etc but zero is hugely to overreach. You know all this already though because you’re well aware that other religious faiths have miracle stories of their own that you find to be daft but that have also subsequently been written down in various accounts, that people have sincerely believed, that people have martyred themselves for etc. The exceptionalism of “OK, there’s the same epistemic basis for those ones as for mine but they’re false and mine are true” is a non-starter.
Why not be honest about this. Just say something like, “yes I have no frame of reference to evaluate a claim of the supernatural, and the evidence I have to support it is of such flimsiness that I reject it for similar claims from other traditions, but I choose to believe it as an article of faith anyway”? No-one would have a problem with that – it’d be a personal belief of no concern to anyone else. When you insist on overreaching into asserting it to be an objective claim of fact for the rest of us though, then you’ll keep crashing and burning as you have here. Sorry, but there it is.
-
Gordon,
Mistakes.... Of course- I forgot that possibility. The obvious answer is that if enough people see something, you can be fairly certain it happened. We are not talking about ghosts, by the way, but something that could be touched. So if everyone at the pool had seen your dead relative and touched him, and was willing to confirm that under cross-examination, I would be more likely to believe it. What would convince me would be if those peoples' lives were changed, in the sense that they now know there is life after death. Also if there was some more evidence, such as your dead relative's grave was dug up and found empty.
With the disciples, you can as good as rule out mistakes because plenty of people would have exposed the mistakes, saying for example that they were drunk at the time and hallucinated. Jairus could have done that sort of thing.
Littleroses,
It's a logical thing to think, but had the disciples made the story to fit the prophecies that would come under the lies category, which has been dealt with.
Blue hillside,
See the above reply to Gordon re: the mistakes theory.
-
Gordon,
Mistakes.... Of course- I forgot that possibility. The obvious answer is that if enough people see something, you can be fairly certain it happened. We are not talking about ghosts, by the way, but something that could be touched. So if everyone at the pool had seen your dead relative and touched him, and was willing to confirm that under cross-examination, I would be more likely to believe it. What would convince me would be if those peoples' lives were changed, in the sense that they now know there is life after death. Also if there was some more evidence, such as your dead relative's grave was dug up and found empty.
With the disciples, you can as good as rule out mistakes because plenty of people would have exposed the mistakes, saying for example that they were drunk at the time and hallucinated. Jairus could have done that sort of thing.
Littleroses,
It's a logical thing to think, but had the disciples made the story to fit the prophecies that would come under the lies category, which has been dealt with.
Blue hillside,
See the above reply to Gordon re: the mistakes theory.
Some people still claim the world is flat, others claim to have seen fairies. If something is not credible, like a truly dead person coming back to life, or the miracles it is claimed Jesus performed, they are either lying or very gullible.
-
Gordon,
Mistakes.... Of course- I forgot that possibility. The obvious answer is that if enough people see something, you can be fairly certain it happened.
Then you've set the evidence bar so low as to be invisible: you seem unduly gullible when it comes to Christianity.
We are not talking about ghosts, by the way, but something that could be touched.
So the story goes, perhaps - but how could you ever know this?
So if everyone at the pool had seen your dead relative and touched him, and was willing to confirm that under cross-examination, I would be more likely to believe it.
What would be the basis of this cross-examination in terms of the criteria that would convince the jury that there was indeed a ghost, as opposed to those claiming there was making a mistake or lying?
What would convince me would be if those peoples' lives were changed, in the sense that they now know there is life after death.
So you'd discount that people can be motivated by something that inspires them despite them having no basis to establish the truth of what inspires them? That seems to be a recipe for treating personal biases and preferences as facts, which will be problematic for you where others hold the same personal convictions about other religious superstitions.
Also if there was some more evidence, such as your dead relative's grave was dug up and found empty.
So, are you suggesting that every ghost claim can be resolved by exhumation? If so, that does seem a tad OTT since it would imply illegal activity and a possibly a conspiracy among undertakers.
With the disciples, you can as good as rule out mistakes because plenty of people would have exposed the mistakes, saying for example that they were drunk at the time and hallucinated. Jairus could have done that sort of thing.
This sounds like special pleading coupled with hyper-gullibility.
-
Spud,
Mistakes.... Of course- I forgot that possibility. The obvious answer is that if enough people see something, you can be fairly certain it happened.
Like a glamorous assistant being sawn in two on stage in front of an audience you mean?
We are not talking about ghosts, by the way, but something that could be touched. So if everyone at the pool had seen your dead relative and touched him, and was willing to confirm that under cross-examination, I would be more likely to believe it.
Except of course deep coma (to take just one possibility) looks just like death, and even a modern person wouldn’t be able to tell the difference without tests and machines. Now think of a person some 2,000 years ago with the level of knowledge he’d have had. Now think of that person at a distance, rather than close to so he couldn’t examine or even necessarily identify with certainty the body at all. It’s all getting a bit thin isn’t it.
What would convince me would be if those peoples' lives were changed, in the sense that they now know there is life after death.
Then is shouldn’t. That people sometimes change their lives because they believe something to be true tells you nothing at all about whether or not it actually is true. All you need for that to happen is the belief, nothing more
Also if there was some more evidence, such as your dead relative's grave was dug up and found empty.
Ah, the reveal. Just like, say, when the curtain is removed to that the magician is now out of the box?
With the disciples, you can as good as rule out mistakes because plenty of people would have exposed the mistakes, saying for example that they were drunk at the time and hallucinated. Jairus could have done that sort of thing.
Don’t be daft. Someone being sincerely mistaken doesn’t suddenly become not mistaken for no good reason. And even if he did, if Fred though he saw someone dead and then alive and he told someone else who told someone else etc until eventually decades later someone wrote it down it would still be written down the same way even if Fred had long since changed his mind.
Blue hillside,
See the above reply to Gordon re: the mistakes theory.
I have. Can you see where you’ve gone wrong again?
-
Hi jeremyp, Thanks for your post.
Surely the forensic style of the text itself
What is forensic about the style of the text? And which text? Each gospel has its own style (or so I have read - I don't read Koine Greek myself).
and its accurate historical and geograhical detail is evidence that much of the Fourth Gospel is based on eye witness reports?
Have you read Bernard Cornwall's Sharpe novels? Or the Cadfael novels? All rich in accurate historical detail but fiction, nonetheless.
In particular, chapters 18 and 19 appear to be the personal eye witness report of the writer himself - not the Beloved Disciple (as alleged by Irenaeus), but a Roman official resident in Jerusalem at that time.
How so? If they were an eye witness account, the eye witness was with Jesus at the garden of Gethsemene, in both Annas and Caiaphas's houses, with Peter as he denied Jesus three times, in Pilate's house when Jesus was there and present at the crucifixion. That doesn't seem likely to me.
I do agree that John's account is more credible than the synoptic accounts. For a start, it all takes place on the day before the first day of Passover not on the first day of Passover when prominent Jewish priests would have been observing the Sabbath rather than holding trials but that doesn't mean it is or isn't fiction.
-
A quick thought experiment for you Spud,
Imagine if you will that you were an alien who’d flown far cross the universe and landed on Earth. You’d never heard of Christianity, but there to meet you was Spud. Once the formalities were complete, (a cup of tea and a nice garibaldi biscuit for example) you then said, “So tell me Spud, why do you believe that a man/god existed who was alive, then dead for a bit then alive again?”
And then Spud laid it out for you: “Well, we have ancient texts see with accounts from before people could read and write and had only the most basic medical knowledge. And somebody said he saw it happen, and that person told his pal and so on until eventually it was written down. Only it was written down several times by different authors in texts that draw heavily on the prior ones, but that change some of the details along the way. Oh, and all this happened when numerous miracle stories were accepted in the absence of more rigorous explanations, and the death/re-birth one in particular cropped up in countless other faith systems too.”
Now let’s say too that you were a well-brought up alien who didn’t want to cause offence, so rather than burst out laughing instead you said something like, “but that all seems very flimsy to me Spud, as I’m sure it does to you when the same evidence is used to support miracle stories from different faiths that you don’t think are true (nice biscuit by the way). I’m not saying that your story necessarily isn’t true you understand but why on Earth (see what I did there?) would you think that it is true given all the other naturalistic possible explanations?”
And you would say something like, “but the chances of all those other ones are zero, albeit that I have no way to demonstrate that.”
Now I ask you – as an honest alien and on that basis would you think, “Oh OK then, sounds fair enough to me”, or would you sneak another garibaldi and back away thanking Spud profusely but suddenly remembering another appointment you were already late for, gosh is that the time already etc”?
Be honest now.
-
Gordon,
Yes I know my last post looks hyper gullible. However, the gospels anticipate the accusation of mistakes, being very clear that Jesus was fully dead, and that he was really alive again. If they were "honestly mistaken" then they lied about the details they give, and thus would have broken under torture.
-
Gordon,
Yes I know my last post looks hyper gullible. However, the gospels anticipate the accusation of mistakes, being very clear that Jesus was fully dead, and that he was really alive again. If they were "honestly mistaken" then they lied about the details they give, and thus would have broken under torture.
You don't know that they were tortured. Just because something is stated in the Bible doesn't mean it is true.
-
Spud,
Yes I know my last post looks hyper gullible. However, the gospels anticipate the accusation of mistakes, being very clear that Jesus was fully dead, and that he was really alive again. If they were "honestly mistaken" then they lied about the details they give, and thus would have broken under torture.
Ah, the old "this book is true because this book says it's true" line. Haven't seen that for a while.
Have a garibaldi.
-
Gordon,
Yes I know my last post looks hyper gullible. However, the gospels anticipate the accusation of mistakes, being very clear that Jesus was fully dead, and that he was really alive again. If they were "honestly mistaken" then they lied about the details they give, and thus would have broken under torture.
This post also looks hyper-gullible, Spud, as well as involving circularity and argument from authority, topped off by a dash of special pleading.
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
Really, have you seen how easy it is for Trump to get away with telling porkies. He is frequently refuted and yet some people believe him.
I see naïve people. Everywhere.
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus.
Possibly, but not certainly: and even if they were that says nothing about whether what they recorded was true or that anecdotal claims can ever be sufficient evidence for a miracle, given the risks of human artifice.
If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
Given the importance of these miracle claims as articles of religious faith, and given that they were written by and have been subsequently maintained in use by supporters of Jesus, that would seem unlikely. In any event refuting these anecdotal miracle claims can be done today by simply pointing out that since the risks of mistake or lies can't be excluded there is no sound basis to consider these miracle claims as being historical facts - which is why more nuanced Christians treat them as articles of personal faith.
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
Spud you seem pretty gullible!
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
... and yet the people chose Bar-Abbas, a robber as opposed to a miracle worker. It makes you wonder.
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels ... were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus.
This is something you haven’t shown to be true yet.
If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
They have been refuted many times. Have you read any of the posts on this message board?
As for more contemporary refutations, what research have you done to show that none exist or ever existed?
-
Spud,
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
That’s not something you can know to be true. If someone thought he saw something that was written down decades later after numerous re-tellings and some translations along the way, unless the eventual authors then went back to find the originators to ask them whether they still think they saw what they thought they saw all those years ago the story would be unchanged. And even if they did to do that and even if the original witness still believed that he saw what he thought he saw, still you’d have all the problems of genuine error etc.
Try this:
1. At 11.30 am a driver reports seeing a backpacker walking on the hard shoulder of the M25.
2. At 11.35 the police responder passes on the message that there’s an alpaca walking along the motorway.
3. At 11.40 the police car that’s been notified spends half an hour looking, but can’t find the damn llama anywhere.
And that’s all in ten minutes!
-
Really, have you seen how easy it is for Trump to get away with telling porkies. He is frequently refuted and yet some people believe him.
I see naïve people. Everywhere.
Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though. This is about were the disciples mistaken. How about mistaken British intelligence on WMD? That was refuted because they couldn't find it. Sure, people believed it to begin with, but not when it had been investigated. I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.
-
Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though. This is about were the disciples mistaken. How about mistaken British intelligence on WMD? That was refuted because they couldn't find it. Sure, people believed it to begin with, but not when it had been investigated. I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.
If Jesus had done all that was claimed for him, how come the Jews are still waiting for their messiah to put in an appearance? It would appear that only his faithful followers thought he was the big cheese, even his own family were sceptical.
-
Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though.
We know that some, in support of their cause, are very resilient and are prepared to suffer or die: even so, had they been mistaken, or had been lied to, they might still have genuinely believed in what they viewed as being the truth - but that conviction isn't evidence that what they believed, and however sincerely or doggedly they believed it, was indeed true.
This is about were the disciples mistaken. How about mistaken British intelligence on WMD? That was refuted because they couldn't find it.
Being mistaken about ordnance and being mistaken about apparent miracles aren't quite the same thing though.
Sure, people believed it to begin with, but not when it had been investigated. I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.
So, what methods did these 'early readers and witnesses' use to scrutinise so as to rule out the risks of mistake or lies, and just how robust and independent of bias were these methods?
-
... and yet the people chose Bar-Abbas, a robber as opposed to a miracle worker. It makes you wonder.
If you believe that part of the story, presumably you believe that he was very popular with the crowds and that it was the authorities who hated him. And that he didn't obey all their Mishna laws, or lead a revolt against the Romans?
I suppose the reason the majority view now is that it's not true, is due to his not being physically present any longer.
Spud,
That’s not something you can know to be true. If someone thought he saw something that was written down decades later after numerous re-tellings and some translations along the way, unless the eventual authors then went back to find the originators to ask them whether they still think they saw what they thought they saw all those years ago the story would be unchanged. And even if they did to do that and even if the original witness still believed that he saw what he thought he saw, still you’d have all the problems of genuine error etc.
Try this:
1. At 11.30 am a driver reports seeing a backpacker walking on the hard shoulder of the M25.
2. At 11.35 the police responder passes on the message that there’s an alpaca walking along the motorway.
3. At 11.40 the police car that’s been notified spends half an hour looking, but can’t find the damn llama anywhere.
And that’s all in ten minutes!
I like your example. If you apply that to Jesus, you find a similar thing happened. The four canonical gospels are much more down to earth and believable - like the sighting of the backpacker. Then a century or so later you find whacky miracle stories like turning an acorn into a mountain - maybe a corruption of something over time? A bit like a llama walking down the side of a motorway?
As for being mistaken: either you see holes in someone or you don't. Seems fairly black and white with no room for mistakes (Luke 24:39)
-
If you believe that part of the story, presumably you believe that he was very popular with the crowds and that it was the authorities who hated him. And that he didn't obey all their Mishna laws, or lead a revolt against the Romans?
I suppose the reason the majority view now is that it's not true, is due to his not being physically present any longer.
I like your example. If you apply that to Jesus, you find a similar thing happened. The four canonical gospels are much more down to earth and believable - like the sighting of the backpacker. Then a century or so later you find whacky miracle stories like turning an acorn into a mountain - maybe a corruption of something over time? A bit like a llama walking down the side of a motorway?
As for being mistaken: either you see holes in someone or you don't. Seems fairly black and white with no room for mistakes (Luke 24:39)
Islamic suicide bombers firmly believe in their faith and are prepared to die for it.
-
If you believe that part of the story, presumably you believe that he was very popular with the crowds and that it was the authorities who hated him. And that he didn't obey all their Mishna laws, or lead a revolt against the Romans? I suppose the reason the majority view now is that it's not true, is due to his not being physically present any longer.
I don't think that there is any way of being certain about the stories attributed to Jesus. My guess is that he was initiated into the same Jewish sect as John the Baptist and became a temporary Nazirite and his teachings were seen as heretical by those of the Synagogue who were traditionalists and saw it as a threat to their authority, particularly as he was want to criticise them.. I doubt whether it would have been difficult for them to organise a mob to choose Bar-Abbas. The problem I see, that the doctrine of Christianity has, is that it is heavily dependant upon the cult status of Jesus rather than upon what he attempted to teach. If the focus was upon the teachings, it wouldn't matter who uttered them as long as they worked for the followers. Perhaps one day, somebody will discover some manuscripts written in Aramaic at the time of his ministry rather than at the time the early church was trying to organise itself.
-
Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though.
If he did, what makes you think the confession would have been recorded? For example, it is traditional to believe that Peter and Paul both met their ends during Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome. Since Nero's alleged motivation was to scapegoat the Christians for the fire, why would he care if they went to their deaths screaming that it was all a lie?
I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.
How would somebody reading the gospels in Rome, Alexandria or Antioch verify the healing of an unnamed person from thirty years before in Galilee?
-
Not even John 20:4?
The likelihood of that is also zero, as most of them were martyred, and people don't die for something they know to be a lie.
All the possible explanations, have likelihoods of zero.
What is the evidence for them being martyred?
-
Islamic suicide bombers firmly believe in their faith and are prepared to die for it.
The point here though is that people don't die for something they know was made up.
-
The point here though is that people don't die for something they know was made up.
Nobody said they did though: that they sincerely believed whatever motivated them doesn't imply that whatever motivated them was true.
Can you see the difference yet?
-
Nobody said they did though: that they sincerely believed whatever motivated them doesn't imply that whatever motivated them was true.
Can you see the difference yet?
I was referring to the difference between someone who believes something to be true and someone who knows it is made up. The first may die for his cause but the second will most likely not.
Back to the risk of 'mistakes'- if someone says they saw and felt holes in someone's hands and feet, how likely is this to have been mistaken, especially when someone else says he saw and touched the same holes, including a wound in the person's side?
-
I was referring to the difference between someone who believes something to be true and someone who knows it is made up. The first may die for his cause but the second will most likely not.
The second aren't an issue though: with regard to the first, nobody is saying that early Christians weren't convinced about Jesus, but that they were doesn't mean that what they were convinced of was true,
Back to the risk of 'mistakes'- if someone says they saw and felt holes in someone's hands and feet, how likely is this to have been mistaken, especially when someone else says he saw and touched the same holes, including a wound in the person's side?
So the story goes, Spud, but the underlying issue isn't that Jesus wasn't injured, and if he was crucified then he would have been injured, but that he was dead but didn't stay dead: that is a remarkable claim that would need more that anecdotal accounts derived from possibly biased people.
-
Islamic suicide bombers firmly believe in their faith and are prepared to die for it.
Sweeping statement. Many 'radical' suicide bimbers were radicalised in prisons, with little or no actual instruction in Islam, according to 'mainstream' Islamic scholars. What they had was a garbled politicised embellished account of Islam , a bit like the Gnostics' distorted agenda in the third century.
-
Sweeping statement. Many 'radical' suicide bimbers were radicalised in prisons, with little or no actual instruction in Islam, according to 'mainstream' Islamic scholars. What they had was a garbled politicised embellished account of Islam , a bit like the Gnostics' distorted agenda in the third century.
That doesn’t actually refute the point. “Their faith” doesn’t have to be mainstream Islam. It doesn’t matter whether the story is mainstream Islam, some corrupt version of Islam or Jesus being resurrected, people being prepared to die for it is not good evidence for its truth.
-
Sweeping statement. Many 'radical' suicide bimbers were radicalised in prisons, with little or no actual instruction in Islam, according to 'mainstream' Islamic scholars. What they had was a garbled politicised embellished account of Islam , a bit like the Gnostics' distorted agenda in the third century.
Many radicalised Christians have very little idea about the Bible, they pick out the bits which appear to support their extremist version of that faith.
-
That doesn’t actually refute the point. “Their faith” doesn’t have to be mainstream Islam. It doesn’t matter whether the story is mainstream Islam, some corrupt version of Islam or Jesus being resurrected, people being prepared to die for it is not good evidence for its truth.
If a Muslim suicide bomber bases his actions on the belief that Muslims are oppressed by the group he is attacking (eg Western democracy), he may be right that they are being oppressed, even though his retaliation is wrong. So the point still stands that people who suffer or die for a cause do so only if they believe the cause is not something made up.
-
If a Muslim suicide bomber bases his actions on the belief that Muslims are oppressed by the group he is attacking (eg Western democracy), he may be right that they are being oppressed, even though his retaliation is wrong. So the point still stands that people who suffer or die for a cause do so only if they believe the cause is not something made up.
But that still doesn't mean they are correct in their belief. ::)
-
The second aren't an issue though:
One of the risks you said needed to be assessed was the risk of lies.
with regard to the first, nobody is saying that early Christians weren't convinced about Jesus, but that they were doesn't mean that what they were convinced of was true,
So the story goes, Spud, but the underlying issue isn't that Jesus wasn't injured, and if he was crucified then he would have been injured, but that he was dead but didn't stay dead: that is a remarkable claim that would need more that anecdotal accounts derived from possibly biased people.
Were NASA and Neil Armstrong mistaken when they claimed they had landed on the moon? They tell us they went in a spaceship which took a certain time to get there, and that there was reduced gravity there. That they were mistaken about where they landed is not a credible interpretation of their claim: either they did land on the moon or were making the story up. It seems the gospels give specifics about why they thought Jesus was dead but didn't stay dead. That he was merely injured or that what they thought was him alive again was really a hallucination, is not a credible interpretation of their accounts. Therefore they must have been deliberately making it up, or, Jesus really did rise from the dead.
-
If a Muslim suicide bomber bases his actions on the belief that Muslims are oppressed by the group he is attacking (eg Western democracy), he may be right that they are being oppressed, even though his retaliation is wrong. So the point still stands that people who suffer or die for a cause do so only if the cause is not something made up.
Nope: the problem here, Spud, is that you are basing your argument here primarily on political conflict, and even allowing that the conflict is underpinned by religion the bomber may genuinely feel that their religious community is being oppressed, and that there are examples of this oppression that in their view justifies their actions.
Nobody is arguing that those prepared to kill, or who are killed, in relation to a cause don't sincerely believe that this cause is true or just: the issue you seem unable to grasp is that their sincere beliefs aren't confirmation that what they sincerely believe is actually true or can be justified.
-
But that still doesn't mean they are correct in their belief. ::)
It's actually a fair indication that they are correct. Read about how the Crusaders slaughtered all the Muslims in Jerusalem in the 11th century, or the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, or the killing of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan by US forces. Of course that doesn't justify them being a suicide bomber
-
their sincere beliefs
With regard to Muslims being oppressed aren't confirmation that what they sincerely believe is actually true or can be justified.
Their actions are a strong indicator that Muslims are being oppressed.
-
One of the risks you said needed to be assessed was the risk of lies.
So I did: read back, since it was the 'first' of the two types you suggested that I was referring to: those who die in support of a cause they believe in.
Were NASA and Neil Armstrong mistaken when they claimed they had landed on the moon? They tell us they went in a spaceship which took a certain time to get there, and that there was reduced gravity there. That they were mistaken about where they landed is not a credible interpretation of their claim: either they did land on the moon or were making the story up.
That it can reasonably be concluded that they did indeed land on the Moon is because there is evidence for this other than just their anecdotal accounts of having done so - this isn't rocket science, Spud (though it is, in another sense).
It seems the gospels give specifics about why they thought Jesus was dead but didn't stay dead. That he was merely injured or that what they thought was him alive again was really a hallucination, is not a credible interpretation of their accounts. Therefore they must have been deliberately making it up, or, Jesus really did rise from the dead.
The gospels contain anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that claim a miracle, which is a very different matter to lunar landings, and since anecdote is all there is in relation to the remarkable claim of Jesus being dead but not staying dead, then the risks associated with anecdotal reports (such as mistakes or lies) are relevant, and if these can't be meaningfully addressed then I'm afraid the gospels stories are, as I've said before, indistinguishable from fiction.
-
With regard to Muslims being oppressed
Their actions are a strong indicator that Muslims are being oppressed.
So what? That there is demonstrable political oppression isn't confined to Muslims.
-
With regard to Muslims being oppressedTheir actions are a strong indicator that Muslims are being oppressed.
Let's unpack that a little. The Muslims are being oppressed and yet they don't give up being Muslims. That means they surely believe their faith is the true faith. Do you agree with them? If you do, why are you not a Muslim? If you don't, then it should be obvious that people strongly believing something, even to the point of death, is not a good indicator of its truth.
-
So I did: read back, since it was the 'first' of the two types you suggested that I was referring to: those who die in support of a cause they believe in.
That it can reasonably be concluded that they did indeed land on the Moon is because there is evidence for this other than just their anecdotal accounts of having done so - this isn't rocket science, Spud (though it is, in another sense).
The gospels contain anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that claim a miracle, which is a very different matter to lunar landings, and since anecdote is all there is in relation to the remarkable claim of Jesus being dead but not staying dead, then the risks associated with anecdotal reports (such as mistakes or lies) are relevant, and if these can't be meaningfully addressed then I'm afraid the gospels stories are, as I've said before, indistinguishable from fiction.
In 2000 years' time, if no further lunar landings are attempted, all people will have as evidence is some documentation and video recording. Will that be enough for them to believe we landed a man on the moon?
-
It's actually a fair indication that they are correct. Read about how the Crusaders slaughtered all the Muslims in Jerusalem in the 11th century, or the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, or the killing of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan by US forces. Of course that doesn't justify them being a suicide bomber
When people claim the less than credible to be true, like the resurrection, one has to seriously question why they believed that to be factual. There is likely to be an explanation which has nothing to do with the 'supernatural'.
-
In 2000 years' time, if no further lunar landings are attempted, all people will have as evidence is some documentation and video recording. Will that be enough for them to believe we landed a man on the moon?
At least that is evidence, which can be put to the test. In 2000 years time people might be visiting the moon on a regular basis for their hols, for instance. There is no reliable evidence to substantiate the claims made about Jesus.
-
In 2000 years' time, if no further lunar landings are attempted, all people will have as evidence is some documentation and video recording. Will that be enough for them to believe we landed a man on the moon?
Don't forget the stuff left on the Moon or that the current documentation and video has established provenance well beyond anecdote.
-
Don't forget the stuff left on the Moon or that the current documentation and video has established provenance well beyond anecdote.
Spud can't even point us in the direction any documentation written during the lifetime of Jesus, or a portrait of him. One would have thought that one of the faithful might have drawn a picture of him for posterity.
-
Let's unpack that a little. The Muslims are being oppressed and yet they don't give up being Muslims. That means they surely believe their faith is the true faith. Do you agree with them? If you do, why are you not a Muslim? If you don't, then it should be obvious that people strongly believing something, even to the point of death, is not a good indicator of its truth.
We are talking about the first Christians, not us centuries later. They claimed to have witnessed something, which they refused to stop talking about having been told to by the Jewish leaders, then later on by the Romans because they were converting gentiles to monotheism. That much is clear. My point is that they would not have continued to do so if they had been lying about seeing stuff.
-
So I did: read back, since it was the 'first' of the two types you suggested that I was referring to: those who die in support of a cause they believe in.
That it can reasonably be concluded that they did indeed land on the Moon is because there is evidence for this other than just their anecdotal accounts of having done so - this isn't rocket science, Spud (though it is, in another sense).
The gospels contain anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that claim a miracle, which is a very different matter to lunar landings, and since anecdote is all there is in relation to the remarkable claim of Jesus being dead but not staying dead, then the risks associated with anecdotal reports (such as mistakes or lies) are relevant, and if these can't be meaningfully addressed then I'm afraid the gospels stories are, as I've said before, indistinguishable from fiction.
Point taken. However, in some countries evidence of some sort can be used to convict a murderer and put him to death. Would you agree that this evidence needs to be as good as the evidence for the miracles in the gospels, and that if evidence can be used to take away human rights as punishment, then it has to be rock solid. What is the difference between this and evidence for miracles?
-
We are talking about the first Christians, not us centuries later. They claimed to have witnessed something, which they refused to stop talking about having been told to by the Jewish leaders, then later on by the Romans because they were converting gentiles to monotheism. That much is clear. My point is that they would not have continued to do so if they had been lying about seeing stuff.
What is reported in the Bible and what is actually factual is open to question. Christianity came into being as a religion well after Jesus was dead. I suspect many, if not all, of the people who actually knew the real Jesus, instead of the story book character, were dead and gone by then too.
-
Spud,
We are talking about the first Christians, not us centuries later. They claimed to have witnessed something, which they refused to stop talking about having been told to by the Jewish leaders, then later on by the Romans because they were converting gentiles to monotheism. That much is clear. My point is that they would not have continued to do so if they had been lying about seeing stuff.
But they may have done if they were genuinely mistaken remember?
Point taken. However, in some countries evidence of some sort can be used to convict a murderer and put him to death. Would you agree that this evidence needs to be as good as the evidence for the miracles in the gospels,…
No – it needs to be much, much better than that. Non-contemporaneous hearsay would be unlikely to convict someone of murder even under an extreme legal systems, and especially not if that “evidence” concerned a supposed supernatural event.
…and that if evidence can be used to take away human rights as punishment, then it has to be rock solid. What is the difference between this and evidence for miracles?
See above. “The evidence for miracles” would be laughed out of any court of law worthy of the term “law”.
-
Spud,
In 2000 years' time, if no further lunar landings are attempted, all people will have as evidence is some documentation and video recording. Will that be enough for them to believe we landed a man on the moon?
No – what they would have as evidence in addition to that would (presumably) be a reasonable understanding of the technology available in 1969, so there’d be no particular reason to doubt the story.
You’re making a category error here by conflating the naturalistic with the non-naturalistic. For an equivalence the story would have to be something like an account written around 1989 by people who weren’t there that, say, in 1969 three men flew to the moon on the backs of dragons after which all the evidence was destroyed but for the subsequent accounts themselves. Even if that story was true, people 2,000 years hence would still have every reason to doubt it because of the flimsiness of the evidence.
-
Many radicalised Christians have very little idea about the Bible, they pick out the bits which appear to support their extremist version of that faith.
Whether they are 'Chridtian' in that premis,is moot.
After all, one definition of 'Christian' - and probably the one which bears most, came from Jesus Himself.
"By this shall all men know that you are MY disciples; that you love one another as I have loved you.."
No love, no Christ.
Simples.
-
Whether they are 'Chridtian' in that premis,is moot.
After all, one definition of 'Christian' - and probably the one which bears most, came from Jesus Himself.
"By this shall all men know that you are MY disciples; that you love one another as I have loved you.."
No love, no Christ.
Simples.
As the gospels were written well after the guy was dead, it is unlikely that what Jesus is quoted as saying are his exact words as they were not written down at the time he is supposed to have said them. I bet you would be unable to quote the exact words some one spoke years later! It is likely people put their own construction on what he is supposed to have said.
I don't know what you mean by the phrase, 'no love, no Christ'?
-
Blue hillside,
What I meant was "Would you agree that this evidence (for murder) needs to be as good as the evidence for miracles in general?" Especially so if capital punishment is used. In other words, both need to be 100% reliable.
-
Point taken. However, in some countries evidence of some sort can be used to convict a murderer and put him to death. Would you agree that this evidence needs to be as good as the evidence for the miracles in the gospels, and that if evidence can be used to take away human rights as punishment, then it has to be rock solid. What is the difference between this and evidence for miracles?
Any evidence used in legal cases is better than 'evidence' for miracles, for two main reasons;
1. Evidence in legal cases, such as here in the UK, is testable in court and requires more than just uncorroborated hearsay.
2. If you use what is legally acceptable as your standard then there is no evidence for miracles: no reputable court would entertain the notion.
You are conflating the natural (human behaviour) with the supernatural (miracle claims) - and you should avoid this line of thinking since it is silly. For your approach to work you need a method for assessing miracles that is as robust as, say,the fingerprints of 'Harry the Cat' being found on the recovered stolen silverware - do you have one?
-
Spud,
What I meant was "Would you agree that this evidence (for murder) needs to be as good as the evidence for miracles in general?" In other words, both need to be 100% reliable.
There's no such thing as 100% reliable, and it still makes no sense. If you're asking something like, "Would you agree that this evidence (for murder) needs to be as good as the currently available evidence for miracles in general" then, as I said, it needs to be much better than that because the currently available evidence for miracles is so flimsy.
If though you meant something like, "Would you agree that this evidence (for murder) needs to be as good as the evidence would be to demonstrate an actual miracles in general" then, leaving aside for now the category error problem of applying a naturalistic method (evidence) to a supernatural claim (miracle) then arguably I suppose it would actually be less. Courts concern themselves with evidence "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas the evidence for a miracle would have to be so extraordinary (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence etc) that it would probably exceed that normally required by a court of law.
As I said though, I have no idea how even conceptually you could have evidence for a miracle.
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.
But in effect they were refuted, in that Christianity, pretty well alone amongst the major religions, failed to gain a foothold in the place where it arose. What this means is that most of the people who were eye witnesses to the purported events in the gospels didn't align themselves with Jesus and the new religion. So either that the purported events in the gospels didn't concur with their eye witnesses recollection (most likely) or the events were as reported but people failed to be impressed (seems exceptionally unlikely given the hyperbole of claims in the gospels).
-
The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus.
That's non-sense - we need to consider proximity both in time and geography.
Time - most experts suggest the gospels were written sometime between about 70AD (Mark) and 110AD - John. Given life expectancy in the 1stC (probably only 40-50 assuming you survived childhood) there would be fairly few eye witnesses still alive, even by the time Mark was written.
But you also need to consider geographic proximity - most eye witnesses would have remained in Palestine - but of course Christianity failed to take root there, so the gospels when they arose appeared in places hundreds or thousands of miles away and written in languages alien to those eye witnesses.
Taken together I think the numbers of actual eye witnesses to the purported events in the gospel who actually saw (and could understand) what was actually written in the gospels decades later would have been vanishingly small.
What we do know, however, is that the events purported to have occurred in the gospels were not sufficiently compelling to mean that christianity gained a foothold amongst that community of eye witnesses. That tells you everything you need to know, really.
-
Plus it is not known who wrote the gospels
-
Plus it is not known who wrote the gospels
of all the things theses clever people who could read and write could have written , why did they come up with this nonsense? hhmmmm? ::)
-
But in effect they were refuted, in that Christianity, pretty well alone amongst the major religions, failed to gain a foothold in the place where it arose.
But Davey that's like an atheist's refutation where an atheist disagrees and miraculously that, some strange how, becomes a ''refutation''
Secondly Christianity existed happily as a sect of Judaism at that time and were excluded as deliberate policy afterwards and there have been many situations when an excluded splinter has been more successful.
-
But Davey that's like an atheist's refutation where an atheist disagrees and miraculously that, some strange how, becomes a ''refutation''
Secondly Christianity existed happily as a sect of Judaism at that time and were excluded as deliberate policy afterwards and there have been many situations when an excluded splinter has been more successful.
The bottom line is that unlike Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism, Christianity failed to take root where it arose. It's claims weren't sufficient to persuade the people who were alive at the time, and living in the place where the purported events happened. To put it bluntly, the eye witnesses were not persuaded in any meaningful numbers.
-
Taken together I think the numbers of actual eye witnesses to the purported events in the gospel who actually saw (and could understand) what was actually written in the gospels decades later would have been vanishingly small.
What we do know, however, is that the events purported to have occurred in the gospels were not sufficiently compelling to mean that christianity gained a foothold amongst that community of eye witnesses. That tells you everything you need to know, really.
But considering Christianity is a world religion what makes non adherence of a small country (who have perhaps the most entrenched position of national chosenness) significant for it.
I think the trouble is your analysis of the resurrection as a sort of one of empirical and sensual event without due attention to the consequences of the resurrection and the ascension.
Clearly the vast majority did not witness this so there must be more to Christianity than an empirical sensual approach. Surely if there were not more Christianity should have just been reabsorbed into Judaism.
Going back to Christianity I think Christians would acknowledge they were not eyewitnesses to this but are witnesses to the ascended Christ. The resurrection then is not so much a mystery in this context.
Similarly with miracles in general. There have been great and faithful cessationists in Christianity who have held with the idea that If there were miracles, the age of miracles has past.
The position of many atheists on this thread is to make Christianity merely a question of the miraculous.....Diddle it so the miraculous, with the exception of the resurrection, is the key to Christianity and then tackle a straw man caricature.
In other words Davey there is IMHO no significance in Judaism rejecting Christianity and as a point of fact was Buddha not an Indian prince? and yet India is predominantly Hindu.
-
But considering Christianity is a world religion what makes non adherence of a small country (who have perhaps the most entrenched position of national chosenness) significant for it.
Ooh - survivorship bias makes an ever-welcome return I see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
-
But considering Christianity is a world religion what makes non adherence of a small country (who have perhaps the most entrenched position of national chosenness) significant for it.
It is a world religion now, it wasn't then. The point is (and remains) that Christianity failed to persuade the eyewitnesses (those living in the place and at the time where the events purportedly happened) that it was true.
That Christianity had the good luck to have acquired a great PR person (Paul, also not an eye witness) along the way it rather irrelevant. You might be able to persuade people in far off lands and decades later of myths (has happened all the time), but if you cannot persuade the people around at the time, that is very, very telling.
-
The bottom line is that unlike Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism, Christianity failed to take root where it arose. It's claims weren't sufficient to persuade the people who were alive at the time, and living in the place where the purported events happened. To put it bluntly, the eye witnesses were not persuaded in any meaningful numbers.
Wasn't Buddha an Indian Prince?
There were Jewish Christians and they got chucked out.
All you've done here is look at a unique feature and massaged it into significance. It isn't...and it certainly isn't a ''bottom'' line.
-
learly the vast majority did not witness this so there must be more to Christianity than an empirical sensual approach.
But according to the gospels the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 people in one place - given the fairly small population at the time you'd attract most of the population of Jerusalem if each of those people told their immediate family and friend of this 'astonishing' occurrence. Yet they were largely totally unmoved by this 'miracle' - so either dead people wandering around alive again was a common thing back then so nothing to write home about or ... whisper it quietly ... it never happened.
-
There were Jewish Christians and they got chucked out.
All new religions are likely to be seen as a threat to the established order - yet the other major religions were still able to take root and establish themselves where they arose - the people living in the place and time were persuaded - unlike christianity.
-
It is a world religion now, it wasn't then. The point is (and remains) that Christianity failed to persuade the eyewitnesses (those living in the place and at the time where the events purportedly happened) that it was true.
An eyewitness is usually someone who sees the events................ are you saying that the resurrection was seen by all the Jews?
Your thesis is thus flawed from the get go.
Your sentiment also contradicts Gordon and Hillside who state that those living in the place and at the time were gullible and would buy anything.
Well we can see that jewish christianity was one of many sects and Christians were accepted in the synagogues. However foreigners would have been among their number and doctrinal differences would have become different and then the whole thing...the whole religious milieu was upset by the destruction of the temple.
None of this history appears in your amazing account where eyewitness supposedly number everybody and they don't believe there eyes.
-
But according to the gospels the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 people in one place - given the fairly small population at the time you'd attract most of the population of Jerusalem if each of those people told their immediate family and friend of this 'astonishing' occurrence. Yet they were largely totally unmoved by this 'miracle' - so either dead people wandering around alive again was a common thing back then so nothing to write home about or ... whisper it quietly ... it never happened.
I disagree, I suspect a lot of family and friends would think they were having their legs pulled.
You seem to be ignoring the parts of the New Testament which talk about large numbers joining the ranks of the believers.
500 at once what's that? The audience of a small regional cinema in the forties on a good day?
-
All new religions are likely to be seen as a threat to the established order - yet the other major religions were still able to take root and establish themselves where they arose - the people living in the place and time were persuaded - unlike christianity.
Then you should be able to recount the location of the establishment of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sihkism, Islam, Judaism to within what? fifty miles and show that it prospered there...…….but even if you manage that, how is that significant?
-
In 2000 years' time, if no further lunar landings are attempted, all people will have as evidence is some documentation and video recording. Will that be enough for them to believe we landed a man on the moon?
Also, it's entirely possible that some of the hardware used to land on the Moon will still exist and the Moon rocks. Plus the "some documentation and video recordings" amount to vastly more than the very meagre documentation on Jesus. Plus putting a man on the Moon is plausible. Dead people coming alive again is not.
-
Ooh - survivorship bias makes an ever-welcome return I see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Are you saying Judaism never survived?
If there is survivorship bias surely Davey is making it by talking about the extinction (or even possibly suggesting the non existence) of a Christian community in Palestine.
But then as he is of your tribe you couldn't possibly criticise him could you?........
-
500 at once what's that? The audience of a small regional cinema in the forties on a good day?
But they weren't watching a film were they - allegedly they were seeing a dead man alive again. Had that actually happened it would have spread like wildfire. Unless dead people coming alive again was as unremarkable as a 1950s B movie in the 1stC ... or ... it never happened.
-
That's non-sense - we need to consider proximity both in time and geography.
Time - most experts suggest the gospels were written sometime between about 70AD (Mark) and 110AD - John. Given life expectancy in the 1stC (probably only 40-50 assuming you survived childhood) there would be fairly few eye witnesses still alive, even by the time Mark was written.
But you also need to consider geographic proximity - most eye witnesses would have remained in Palestine - but of course Christianity failed to take root there, so the gospels when they arose appeared in places hundreds or thousands of miles away and written in languages alien to those eye witnesses.
Taken together I think the numbers of actual eye witnesses to the purported events in the gospel who actually saw (and could understand) what was actually written in the gospels decades later would have been vanishingly small.
What we do know, however, is that the events purported to have occurred in the gospels were not sufficiently compelling to mean that christianity gained a foothold amongst that community of eye witnesses. That tells you everything you need to know, really.
Paul wrote, in about 53-57 AD,
"3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth."
Here we have a summary of the death and resurrection accounts from a time when there were still living witnesses. So even if the gospels were written after the last of them had gone, their message had been recorded already.
-
I disagree, I suspect a lot of family and friends would think they were having their legs pulled.
Really - why wouldn't they trust a close family member or friend - particularly as presumably their neighbour or a more distant relative would be saying the same thing.
-
But they weren't watching a film were they -
Irrelevent, You were suggesting that 500 witness testimonies should have been large enough to influence the population. I'm just pointing outhow small that number is in even a regional context.
-
Really - why wouldn't they trust a close family member or friend - particularly as presumably their neighbour or a more distant relative would be saying the same thing.
I'm sure some may have believed the testimony.
Some would have believed it and believed that Jesus was merely a raised prophet
Others would treat it like a leg pull
Others would think family members and friends would have been hoaxed
Some would have disowned family and friends for suggesting something blasphemous
-
As I said though, I have no idea how even conceptually you could have evidence for a miracle.
John says he saw the crucifixion, the stabbing afterwards, and the marks these left on the person he saw alive again. He didn't witness the actual miracle but the miracle's fingerprints. For us his account is anecdotal, but it is corroborated by Luke and Matthew. So we have something like a "cold case" from which new evidence can emerge from re-examined archives. "New technical methods developed after the case can be used on the surviving evidence to analyze the causes, often with conclusive results." (Wiki) this is ongoing, as computers can generate information that can confirm details in the accounts, such as (for example) the most common names in first century Palestine.
-
What we do know, however, is that the events purported to have occurred in the gospels were not sufficiently compelling to mean that christianity gained a foothold amongst that community of eye witnesses. That tells you everything you need to know, really.
I think it is debatable as to whether Christianity gained a foothold in Palestine. I think it did.
Paul tells us that there was a Christian church in Jerusalem. He visited it and conversed/argued with its leaders twice. It would have been destroyed along with just about everything else there when the Romans destroyed the place in 70.
70, by the way, is around the earliest date considered to be plausible for any of the gospels. So not only would anybody trying to verify them have to contend with distance in time and physical distance (it took about three months to travel from one end of the empire to the other), but also they would have to contend with the fact that, once they arrived in Jerusalem, they would have found it flattened and its occupants dispersed to who knows where - or slaughtered.
-
Some would have believed it and believed that Jesus was merely a raised prophet
What are you on about - what on earth is a 'raised prophet' - is it a bit like a raised flower bed?!?
-
What are you on about - what on earth is a 'raised prophet' - is it a bit like a raised flower bed?!?
It's a spelling mistake. He means razed.
-
Just to note that there were no witnesses to a miracle by the way. There were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus appearing to be dead, and there were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus walking around fresh as a daisy three days later. The miracle part though - ie, stopping being dead - would have been in the tomb with a big rock in front of it. So far as I know there was no-one else in there to do any witnessing.
So, at best, what we have is people witnessing the setup and people witnessing the reveal, some of whom then reasoned that there must have been a miracle in between, only no-one saw that bit. And this, oddly, if precisely how a magician works - lots of attention on the setup, quick hiding behind the curtain, clap like fury at the reveal and leave the audience to decide that some magic must have happened behind that inconveniently placed roc - er - curtain.
Funny that.
-
It's a spelling mistake. He means razed.
No he doesn't razed is when you level something....the opposite of being raised in this case from the dead.
-
What are you on about - what on earth is a 'raised prophet' - is it a bit like a raised flower bed?!?
A prophet who has been raised from the dead.
Easy not to get that, particularly when you have been online for an hour on the topic of resurrection.
-
Let's unpack that a little. The Muslims are being oppressed and yet they don't give up being Muslims. That means they surely believe their faith is the true faith. Do you agree with them? If you do, why are you not a Muslim? If you don't, then it should be obvious that people strongly believing something, even to the point of death, is not a good indicator of its truth.
The original point was that a person generally wouldn't die for something that he consciously knew to be untrue. This was to answer the point that the disciples made up their story. If Islamic suicide bombers didn't believe their faith was the true faith, they wouldn't do what they do. So they can't be compared with early Christian martyrs.
-
Just to note that there were no witnesses to a miracle by the way. There were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus appearing to be dead, and there were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus walking around fresh as a daisy three days later. The miracle part though - ie, stopping being dead - would have been in the tomb with a big rock in front of it. So far as I know there was no-one else in there to do any witnessing.
So, at best, what we have is people witnessing the setup and people witnessing the reveal, some of whom then reasoned that there must have been a miracle in between, only no-one saw that bit. And this, oddly, if precisely how a magician works - lots of attention on the setup, quick hiding behind the curtain, clap like fury at the reveal and leave the audience to decide that some magic must have happened behind that inconveniently placed roc - er - curtain.
Funny that.
None of the gospels have a description of the actual raising from the dead. Furthermore, if you read what each gospel says about the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you'll find that all three accounts are different. Mark doesn't have any post resurrection appearances (the original is cut off at 16:8 ) and the other three all disagree about what happened next. In my opinion, all three of Matthew, Luke and John were working from Mark's account and when they got to 16:8 they thought "what? it can't just end there", so they each made up post resurrection stories. Later, some scribe of the New Testament was copying out Mark and thought "what? it can't just end there", so he made up a new ending by précising the other three gospels and tacking it on.
-
A prophet who has been raised from the dead.
So you are claiming that dead people coming alive was a 'nothing to write home about', 'happens all the time' thing in the 1stC are you?
Non-sense of course - but to follow through with your argument (for the sake of humouring you) if dead people coming alive was a common occurrence, why should we consider the dead Jesus coming alive again as anything other than 'well that's what used to happen all the time back in those days'.
-
Just to note that there were no witnesses to a miracle by the way. There were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus appearing to be dead, and there were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus walking around fresh as a daisy three days later. The miracle part though - ie, stopping being dead - would have been in the tomb with a big rock in front of it. So far as I know there was no-one else in there to do any witnessing.
So, at best, what we have is people witnessing the setup and people witnessing the reveal, some of whom then reasoned that there must have been a miracle in between, only no-one saw that bit. And this, oddly, if precisely how a magician works - lots of attention on the setup, quick hiding behind the curtain, clap like fury at the reveal and leave the audience to decide that some magic must have happened behind that inconveniently placed roc - er - curtain.
Funny that.
Jesus as David Blaine theory.
Tell me Blue where I can find The Church of Paul Daniels.
And verily Paul said unto those who had recieveth the magic set at Christmas and putteth it not out with the rubbish on Boxing Day
You might like this .......not a lot......
-
No he doesn't razed is when you level something....the opposite of being raised in this case from the dead.
Jesus was executed and then buried horizontally (or "levelled") in an unmarked grave probably. "razed" seems good to me.
-
The original point was that a person generally wouldn't die for something that he consciously knew to be untrue. This was to answer the point that the disciples made up their story. If Islamic suicide bombers didn't believe their faith was the true faith, they wouldn't do what they do. So they can't be compared with early Christian martyrs.
Of course they can be compared - both implicitly believe their faith is true (regardless of whether it actually is true) and their faith has such fervour that they are prepared to die for it.
Happens all the time for all sorts of ideologies, and not just religious beliefs - also political and nationalistic as examples.
-
The original point was that a person generally wouldn't die for something that he consciously knew to be untrue. This was to answer the point that the disciples made up their story. If Islamic suicide bombers didn't believe their faith was the true faith, they wouldn't do what they do. So they can't be compared with early Christian martyrs.
That makes no sense.
Islamic suicide bombers refute your original point. They show that all that is needed is belief that the cause is true, not knowledge that the cause is true.
-
None of the gospels have a description of the actual raising from the dead. Furthermore, if you read what each gospel says about the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you'll find that all three accounts are different. Mark doesn't have any post resurrection appearances (the original is cut off at 16:8 ) and the other three all disagree about what happened next. In my opinion, all three of Matthew, Luke and John were working from Mark's account and when they got to 16:8 they thought "what? it can't just end there", so they each made up post resurrection stories. Later, some scribe of the New Testament was copying out Mark and thought "what? it can't just end there", so he made up a new ending by précising the other three gospels and tacking it on.
Kind of like a 1950s B movie where the ending was a bit rubbish so the studio insists on the ending being rewritten to sex it up a bit.
-
Jesus was executed and then buried horizontally (or "levelled") in an unmarked grave probably. "razed" seems good to me.
The ending ''Good to me'' duly noted.
It's not what I was talking about though.
Supposing a forum atheist type witnessed a resurrection and told his forum bosom buddies.
He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event.
OR that he'd been hoaxed.
OR that he was pulling their leg.
and some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations
and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual.
-
Kind of like a 1950s B movie where the ending was a bit rubbish so the studio insists on the ending being rewritten to sex it up a bit.
Yes, except three different crews filmed new endings and then an editor cut them all together to put in the original film.
-
The ending ''Good to me'' duly noted.
It's not what I was talking about though.
So?
Supposing a forum atheist type witnessed a resurrection and told his forum bosom buddies.
He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event.
OR that he'd been hoaxed.
OR that he was pulling their leg.
and some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations
and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual.
I think the second or third options are the most likely. Why do you discount them in the case of Christians?
-
That makes no sense.
Islamic suicide bombers refute your original point. They show that all that is needed is belief that the cause is true, not knowledge that the cause is true.
Islamic suicide bombers not like Christian martyrs who did not achieve Martyrdom by taking others with them. Honestly there is a shockingly poor understanding of NT times and a lot of Guff spouted about it by New atheists.
-
The ending ''Good to me'' duly noted.
It's not what I was talking about though.
Supposing a forum atheist type witnessed a resurrection and told his forum bosom buddies.
He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event.
OR that he'd been hoaxed.
OR that he was pulling their leg.
and some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations
and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual.
But if 500 people in a small tightly knit community were all telling their friends and families the same thing the story would spread like wildfire.
The hubris and hyperbole of the claims are the ultimate downfall of their credibility.
-
Islamic suicide bombers not like Christian martyrs who did not achieve Martyrdom by taking others with them.
So what?
Islamic suicide bombers deliberately blow themselves and other up and they wouldn't do it if they did not believe in the cause. Either you think that Islam must therefore be true or you think it is possible to believe in something that is actually false. If you think the latter, you are being dishonest with yourself if you dismiss the possibility that it applies to Christians dying for their faith.
Honestly there is a shockingly poor understanding of NT times and a lot of Guff spouted about it by New atheists.
Most of the guff on this thread is coming from the Christians.
-
Of course they can be compared - both implicitly believe their faith is true (regardless of whether it actually is true) and their faith has such fervour that they are prepared to die for it.
Happens all the time for all sorts of ideologies, and not just religious beliefs - also political and nationalistic as examples.
I think there is a difference: the disciples claimed they had witnessed miracles; the Islamic suicide bomber is not claiming an experience that would tell him that his is the true faith.
Still, if you disagree, fine.
-
Spud,
I think there is a difference: the disciples claimed they had witnessed miracles; the Islamic suicide bomber is not claiming an experience that would tell him that his is the true faith.
Still, if you disagree, fine.
Again, no-one claims to have seen a miracle. What they claim to have seen is the before and after - the miracle bit in between wasn't seen by anyone; it's just the explanation they came up with to make sense of the parts they did see.
-
I think there is a difference: the disciples claimed they had witnessed miracles; the Islamic suicide bomber is not claiming an experience that would tell him that his is the true faith.
Still, if you disagree, fine.
I disagree - both may, or may not, claim to have witnessed miracles. Remember that martyrhood, in a christian context isn't confined to disciples. There are numerous examples of christian martyrs over the centuries who never came close to being around at the time and place when Jesus was around. Their faith still lead them to die for it - just as islamic suicide bombers may do, or cult members, or extreme advocates of political ideologies, or even (indeed) people prepared to die for their country.
-
So?I think the second or third options are the most likely. Why do you discount them in the case of Christians?
So you too would disagree with Davey and accept that the most likely response to these reports are to dismiss them? I think many would even in NT times.
Because I have encountered God in Christ and see that the resurrection and ascension are in line and consistent with the God I encountered. I find that my chief influence. The epistles if you like are the minutes and memos of the early church and these events are reported in there.
Because dismissal means ignoring the problems of induction. I tend to examine my ridicule, disbelief and discomfort with to find where it is coming from. I'm afraid if it boils down to chronological snobbery or scientism there is a good case to ''discount'' as you put it.
Is being an actual eyewitness to a historical event essential for belief in Christ......no.
-
I disagree - both may, or may not, claim to have witnessed miracles. Remember that martyrhood, in a christian context isn't confined to disciples. There are numerous examples of christian martyrs over the centuries who never came close to being around at the time and place when Jesus was around. Their faith still lead them to die for it - just as islamic suicide bombers may do, or cult members, or extreme advocates of political ideologies, or even (indeed) people prepared to die for their country.
So do you think soldiers in the world wars died to defend their country or to defend their faith?
-
So you too would disagree with Davey and accept that the most likely response to these reports are to dismiss them? I think many would even in NT times.
My point was to try to explain why there is no evidence that this purported 500 people being witness at the same time to a dead man being alive again raises even a ripple.
Had it been one person, sure easy to dismiss it. But if your neighbour, your cousin a street away, your friend who you meet when washing your clothes all say exactly the same thing not so easy to dismiss.
Hard to argue pulling your leg, as everyone would need to be in on a coordinated joke.
Possibly a hoax (but that doesn't help the christian cause) and would still have created a ripple if so many people were being fooled
The three options:
1. He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event
2. some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations
3. and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual
Would all have created a major ripple in the communities that would undoubtedly have come to the attention of the authorities and wider populate.
Yet they didn't.
Drop in Occam's razor and of course you realise that you are missing the most likely explanation for this lack of effect - that it never happened and was added to the gospel's decades later to make them (supposedly) more plausible but actually makes them far less plausible.
-
Or, Davy, how about a Muslim who has raped someone, and is told that he will atone for his sins and go to heaven if he becomes a martyr.
On the one hand, what he was told is untrue. But on the other, he knows what he did. If he hadn't actually committed a rape then he wouldn't bother being a martyr. I'm saying that a person generally does witness something - it could be oppression of Muslims, as another example - in order to be motivated to give up his life.
-
Most of the guff on this thread is coming from the Christians.
That is because you disagree with it philosophically and cosmologically.
New atheist guff is the materially inaccurate and vague nonsense which purports to be an understanding of theology and the history of christianity and other religions.
-
Or, Davy, how about a Muslim who has raped someone, and is told that he will atone for his sins and go to heaven if he becomes a martyr.
On the one hand, what he was told is untrue. But on the other, he knows what he did. If he hadn't actually committed a rape then he wouldn't bother being a martyr. I'm saying that a person generally does witness something - it could be oppression of Muslims, as another example - in order to be motivated to give up his life.
There are plenty of examples of martyrs (christian, muslim and otherwise) who are witnesses to nothing like you describe. They simply believe fervently (and often have been brought up to believe) and are prepared to die for that belief.
You are, of course, correct that politically ideologies (whether religious or not) feed off creating narratives of oppression to go along with their belief that they are right in their beliefs. It helps prevent believers from leaving as it support an us/them, right/wrong mindset. But that isn't necessary for individuals to be prepared to die for their beliefs.
-
My point was to try to explain why there is no evidence that this purported 500 people being witness at the same time to a dead man being alive again raises even a ripple.
Had it been one person, sure easy to dismiss it. But if your neighbour, your cousin a street away, your friend who you meet when washing your clothes all say exactly the same thing not so easy to dismiss.
Hard to argue pulling your leg, as everyone would need to be in on a coordinated joke.
Possibly a hoax (but that doesn't help the christian cause) and would still have created a ripple if so many people were being fooled
The three options:
1. He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event
2. some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations
3. and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual
Would all have created a major ripple in the communities that would undoubtedly have come to the attention of the authorities and wider populate.
Yet they didn't.
Drop in Occam's razor and of course you realise that you are missing the most likely explanation for this lack of effect - that it never happened and was added to the gospel's decades later to make them (supposedly) more plausible but actually makes them far less plausible.
So Davey, was there or was there not a Jewish christian community?
Were there not Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire?To what extent did they become christian communities?
Why was the resurrection in the Epistles which were earlier than the Gospels?
Are you at anytime going to reveal a true intent as a Jesus as Mythicist?
Without the resurrection. How and on what points of doctrine would christianity have built it's reputation and spread.
Here are my comments on these points
1: Yes there was a christian community
2: I think there were jewish communities in the empire some of which would have a christian component or Jewish convert component
3: The resurrection is in the epistles. That seems to be missing from your theses.
-
A prophet who has been raised from the dead.
Easy not to get that, particularly when you have been online for an hour on the topic of resurrection.
I thought part of your argument in the past was that the idea of resurrection in Judaism was something practically unheard of, and therefore the apparent resurrection of Jesus was not something at all in the Jewish purview, and all the more memorable for being so unexpected.
In fact there aren't many instances of 'raising the dead' in the OT. One supposedly performed by Elijah, and the 'raising of Samuel' by a necromancer, on the instruction of Saul (Isaiah among other prophets specifically condemns necromancy as something demonic, so the latter would have probably been regarded as a contrived illusion)
The idea of any kind of truly conscious afterlife only developed late (see Book of Daniel), and of course the matter was still a matter of controversy between the Saducees and Pharisees of Jesus' time. But in these matters, the contention is about life after death in another world, not about corpses being reanimated in this one.
This brings us to the crux of the matter in Christian theology - what on earth do Christians mean by the Resurrection? Especially when they talk about believers having 'met the risen Christ'. Christ we are told was God Incarnate - the second person of the Trinity - as such God was always there to be met (if you believe in him). So what on earth is one expected to believe about this Resurrection business? It sounds to me like wanting to have your cake and eat it ten times over. Jesus is dead, and yet later gets up and walks. He's still flesh and blood, supposedly, but can somehow walk through walls. He tells Mary Magdelene not to touch him (is he in fact half spirit at this point, and 'too hot to handle'?) Yet he specifically directs Doubting Thomas to touch him - indeed to stick his fingers in his wounds.
The whole thing is a farrago of contradictions, which is crowned with the biggest contradiction of all, in the words of St Paul:
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God".
-
Why was the resurrection in the Epistles which were earlier than the Gospels?
As I've hinted above, the Resurrection written about by Paul is totally different from the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. The most we can tell from Paul's account is that he met some kind of 'being of light', whom he identified as Jesus. As he develops his ideas, we see that he thinks of meeting Christ as an entirely inward experience "Yet not I live, but Christ in me". This is totally different from a mutilated corpse getting up, wandering around and meeting his old friends. And remember that on the road to Emmaus, some of those old friends apparently didn't recognise him at all.
-
As I've hinted above, the Resurrection written about by Paul is totally different from the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. The most we can tell from Paul's account is that he met some kind of 'being of light', whom he identified as Jesus. As he develops his ideas, we see that he thinks of meeting Christ as an entirely inward experience "Yet not I live, but Christ in me". This is totally different from a mutilated corpse getting up, wandering around and meeting his old friends. And remember that on the road to Emmaus, some of those old friends apparently didn't recognise him at all.
Paul has a memorable encounter which seems to include empirical and sensual experience and then this gives way to a new experience. What do think the significance of that is. An analogy I find is that you meet your partner and the relationship develops.
Idea development is surely more the preserve of philosophers, academics and sitcom writers.
As far as Gospel encounters are concerned the resurrection may have been a process. What do you think the significance of that is?
-
Paul has a memorable encounter which seems to include empirical and sensual experience and then this gives way to a new experience. What do think the significance of that is.
I think it is no more significant than my experience that riding fast motorcycles is fun.
An analogy I find is that you meet your partner and the relationship develops.
Super.
Idea development is surely more the preserve of philosophers, academics and sitcom writers.
I think we are in sitcom territory here: Carry on Crucifixion, perhaps.
As far as Gospel encounters are concerned the resurrection may have been a process. What do you think the significance of that is?
Not much, since all we have is a story - perhaps we are still in sitcom territory, so that taking the story seriously isn't required.
-
I think it is no more significant than my experience that riding fast motorcycles is fun.
Alas I fear that if they are still discussing your experience with m/cycles in 2000 years time I shall be forced to agree with you.
-
I think we are in sitcom territory here: Carry on Crucifixion, perhaps.
Not much, since all we have is a story - perhaps we are still in sitcom territory, so that taking the story seriously isn't required.
Appeal to ridicule
Horse laugh fallacy.
-
Appeal to ridicule
Horse laugh fallacy.
You were the chap who raised the subject of sitcoms: I'm just following your analogy a little further than you did (b.t.w. if anything I'm guilty of a 'reductio' - but hey, aren't sitcoms meant to be absurd?).
-
I think there is a difference: the disciples claimed they had witnessed miracles; the Islamic suicide bomber is not claiming an experience that would tell him that his is the true faith.
Still, if you disagree, fine.
That just makes it worse for you. Undeniably, suicide bombers go to their deaths for their faith and now you are claiming they do not need to have had any special experience. So that means the early Christians could have gone to their deaths without having any special experiences too.
-
So you too would disagree with Davey and accept that the most likely response to these reports are to dismiss them? I think many would even in NT times.
When did PD ever say that the most likely response to reports of miracles is not to dismiss them?
Because I have encountered God in Christ and see that the resurrection and ascension are in line and consistent with the God I encountered. I find that my chief influence. The epistles if you like are the minutes and memos of the early church and these events are reported in there.
But that's just you talking. I cannot distinguish between you having some genuine supernatural experience, you having some psychological experience which you believe wrongly is supernatural and you just making stuff up.
The same applies to the epistles. You can't show that they are the result of genuine encounters with god and not the writings of people who just want to convince others to join their religion.
Everything you say is just verbiage to obscure the fact that you have got no evidence.
-
But that's just you talking.
Yes and I talked a bit more and you seem to have ignored that.
-
That is because you disagree with it philosophically and cosmologically.
The problem with you is you think adding big words makes you sound more knowledgable, but it's kind of sad and pathetic really. You could have just said "that is because you disagree with it". The rest of your sentence was meaningless bollocks designed to make you look intellectual.
-
Yes and I talked a bit more and you seem to have ignored that.
Yes, because it was meaningless crap about some nonsense called "chronological snobbery".
You haven't addressed the main point of my post which was asking how I could tell if your claimed experience was a real supernatural event, a psychological event that you mistook for supernatural or you making stuff up.
-
When did PD ever say that the most likely response to reports of miracles is not to dismiss them?
But that's just you talking. I cannot distinguish between you having some genuine supernatural experience, you having some psychological experience which you believe wrongly is supernatural and you just making stuff up.
The same applies to the epistles. You can't show that they are the result of genuine encounters with god and not the writings of people who just want to convince others to join their religion.
Everything you say is just verbiage to obscure the fact that you have got no evidence.
Well I know others attest to experiences that can be said to be similar involving the same components...while recognising the individuality of the experience.
Other than that you are right and we are back to the trilemma.....am I mad, bad or telling the truth.
But to get back to the rest of why I discount mad or bad in terms of Christianity that is down to the problems scientism and materialism and ignoring the problem of induction and a misplaced desire to eliminate yourself to avoid self examination.
Science, materialism, empiricism are not equipped to examine or are interested in the grounds of religion but somehow quaint atheists still swear on them as the tools of religions downfall.
-
Well I know others attest to experiences that can be said to be similar involving the same components...while recognising the individuality of the experience.
Yes, and they are not all Christians. People of most religions attest to similar experiences.
Other than that you are right and we are back to the trilemma.....am I mad, bad or telling the truth.
If you are going to force me to pick one of those three, I'd go with mad. In actual fact, I think you believe your experience is genuine but I think you are mistaken to attribute it to the existence of a real god.
I'm not responding to anything else in your post because it looks like an attempt to build a straw man.
-
Well I know others attest to experiences that can be said to be similar involving the same components...while recognising the individuality of the experience.
Other than that you are right and we are back to the trilemma.....am I mad, bad or telling the truth.
Could it be that you are just wrong?
-
Yes, because it was meaningless crap about some nonsense called "chronological snobbery".
Yes the idea that because something is newer it's better or it's been thought through more.
Pinkerian Progress qualifies.
If we insist on reducing humans to what science is able to manage and other people's observations and analysis aren't acceptable because they aren't science then that is pretty week and circular. You start dismissing things of value, import and yes beauty as incorrect where the fact is just that science wasn't up to the job.
-
Could it be that you are just wrong?
Covered by mad or bad, Gordon.
-
Covered by mad or bad, Gordon.
Nope - being wrong is different from being either mad or bad, which is one reason why Lewis' trilemma notion is inadequate.
-
Nope - being wrong is different from being either mad or bad, which is one reason why Lewis' trilemma notion is inadequate.
I shan't hold my breath until you come up with another.
Ok, have a quadrilemma if you like Mad, Bad, wrong or right. Can't see how that helps you though.
-
I shan't hold my breath until you come up with another.
Ok, have a quadrilemma if you like Mad, Bad, wrong or right. Can't see how that helps you though.
It won't: remember I don't have the problem (that would be you).
-
It won't: remember I don't have the problem (that would be you).
Not if i'm right.
-
Not if i'm right.
True; but sadly there are no good reasons to think you are right, since that would require you to show how you'd excluded the possibility that you could have been honestly wrong in interpreting your experience as being an encounter with something supernatural.
-
True; but sadly there are no good reasons to think you are right, .
If it's true that I might be right then you not finding the reasons good isn't really relevant is it?
-
If it's true that I might be right then you not finding the reasons good isn't really relevant is it?
It is relevant: and if you, and no matter how convinced you are, can't address the risk that you could be wrong and since the burden of proof is yours, and not mine, that alone is sufficient reason to doubt your account.
Do you accept that you could be wrong?
-
It is relevant: and if you, and no matter how convinced you are, can't address the risk that you could be wrong and since the burden of proof is yours, and not mine, that alone is sufficient reason to doubt your account.
Do you accept that you could be wrong?
Not at the moment.
Do I have the sole burden of proof? Why? Are you suggesting that the default position is that there is no God? On what grounds does that demand the status of the default position?
-
Nope - being wrong is different from being either mad or bad, which is one reason why Lewis' trilemma notion is inadequate.
No. Under Vlad's terms, being wrong is either mad if he isn't aware of being wrong or bad if he is aware of being wrong. If you are concerned about calling him mad or bad, don't be. They're his terms. If he doesn't like being called mad or bad, tough on him.
-
Not at the moment.
The you are expressing current absolute certainty, which is an untenable position to hold.
Do I have the sole burden of proof? Why?
It is your claim.
Are you suggesting that the default position is that there is no God? On what grounds does that demand the status of the default position?
I'm not suggesting that at all.
-
The you are expressing current absolute certainty, which is an untenable position to hold.
It is your claim.
I'm not suggesting that at all.
Then what is the default position here? What is it that gives me sole burden of proof?
-
Then what is the default position here? What is it that gives me sole burden of proof?
It is your experience that is driving your claim, so the burden of proof is quite clearly yours.
I don't go down the default route that there is no God myself since I think 'God' is a meaningless and incoherent notion to start with: I would, in effect, be saying that the default is that there is an absence of something that is so meaningless and incoherent that nothing can be said about it that would sufficient enough to come to a view regarding it.
I can, of course, see that a 'the default position is that there is no God' could well be a convenient shorthand that could include the above, but it isn't an approach I make much use of since I think far safer ground is to found in considered arguments offered by some God enthusiasts. My view then is that there is no basis to entertain 'God' as being a serious proposition until such times as someone says something meaningful about it that isn't fallacious or incoherent.
-
It is your experience that is driving your claim, so the burden of proof is quite clearly yours.
I don't go down the default route that there is no God myself since I think 'God' is a meaningless and incoherent notion to start with: I would, in effect, be saying that the default is that there is an absence of something that is so meaningless and incoherent that nothing can be said about it that would sufficient enough to come to a view regarding it.
I can, of course, see that a 'the default position is that there is no God' could well be a convenient shorthand that could include the above, but it isn't an approach I make much use of since I think far safer ground is to found in considered arguments offered by some God enthusiasts. My view then is that there is no basis to entertain 'God' as being a serious proposition until such times as someone says something meaningful about it that isn't fallacious or incoherent.
What is the default position that demands I have the burden of proof.
Clearly If I claim a leprechaun or a dragon in the room it is not unreasonable to be asked to produce one since we should have immediate empirical evidence. The evidence is that there is no empirical evidence where there should be.
God or the absence thereof are a different matter.
Secondly I have to ask you why you say God is meaningless? Do you use that in an Empiricists way like the Vienna school?
-
What is the default position that demands I have the burden of proof.
I do wish you'd follow what is being said. In #243 you said If it's true that I might be right then you not finding the reasons good isn't really relevant is it?
I simply reminded you that in relation to what you said (your claim of a supernatural encounter) the burden of proof is yours: you then raised the 'default' issue and I explained why I don't find that approach helpful.
Clearly If I claim a leprechaun or a dragon in the room it is not unreasonable to be asked to produce one since we should have immediate empirical evidence. The evidence is that there is no empirical evidence where there should be.
Give that boy a coconut.
God or the absence thereof are a different matter.
Why - you had an encounter with something other that a leprechaun or a dragon, with 'God', and yet you say that for these two mythic creatures you'd expect empirical evidence, so why no expectation of empirical evidence for 'God'?
Secondly I have to ask you why you say God is meaningless? Do you use that in an Empiricists way like the Vienna school?
I'm using meaningless in the sense of an absence of meaning.
-
I do wish you'd follow what is being said. In #243 you said
I simply reminded you that in relation to what you said (your claim of a supernatural encounter) the burden of proof is yours: you then raised the 'default' issue and I explained why I don't find that approach helpful.
Give that boy a coconut.
Why - you had an encounter with something other that a leprechaun or a dragon, with 'God', and yet you say that for these two mythic creatures you'd expect empirical evidence, so why no expectation of empirical evidence for 'God'?
I'm using meaningless in the sense of an absence of meaning.
I think people will mull the relative importance of what you find helpful or not.
Firstly empirical properties are part of the definition of Leprechauns and Dragons, the chief part.
That is not the case with God.
To expect God to have empirical evidence is shorthand for expecting everything to have empirical evidence which is really empiricism and yes, if you detected a hint of saying that as if it were a bad thing then you're not wrong.
The chief failure of empiricism is that it cannot classically be demonstrated empirically
The last statement is circular.
Time maybe to get your motor running and get down on the Highyawayyyyyy?
-
I think people will mull the relative importance of what you find helpful or not.
They are free to do so.
Firstly empirical properties are part of the definition of Leprechauns and Dragons, the chief part.
That is not the case with God.
Why?
To expect God to have empirical evidence is shorthand for expecting everything to have empirical evidence which is really empiricism and yes, if you detected a hint of saying that as if it were a bad thing then you're not wrong.
The chief failure of empiricism is that it cannot classically be demonstrated empirically
I'm just pointing out your own inconsistency by requiring empirical evidence for leprechauns and dragons but carefully excluding 'God' from this requirement without explaining why 'God' is exempt.
The last statement is circular.
Nope: I'm simply qualifying/defining the term 'meaningless' by noting that it means an absence of meaning, on the same basis that 'homeless' would mean the absence of a home.
Time maybe to get your motor running and get down on the Highyawayyyyyy?
Not tonight, Vlad - though that is on the agenda for tomorrow.
-
Why?
It's back to definitions again i'm afraid Gordon.
Dragons and Leprechauns are defined by their empirical features.
God isn't. That's why Christians tend to file arguments such as yours in the file marked old man with a beard or intergalactically large chap.
I suppose the definition of God as a non empirical comes from his independence from the material world. He is there when matter isn't if it wasn't that is.
His lack of emprical features is down to his necessity or non contingency, his independence from physical phenomena. Light would not be expected to bounce of him for instance.
Although I wouldn't depend on it too much, nobody on here has ever suggested they can positively identify what is non contingent in the universe or indeed how they would go about it.
Where are you taking the Vespa tomorrow then?
-
It's back to definitions again i'm afraid Gordon.
Dragons and Leprechauns are defined by their empirical features.
God isn't. That's why Christians tend to file arguments such as yours in the file marked old man with a beard or intergalactically large chap.
I suppose the definition of God as a non empirical comes from his independence from the material world. He is there when matter isn't if it wasn't that is.
His lack of emprical features is down to his necessity or non contingency, his independence from physical phenomena. Light would not be expected to bounce of him for instance.
Although I wouldn't depend on it too much, nobody on here has ever suggested they can positively identify what is non contingent in the universe or indeed how they would go about it.
Where are you taking the Vespa tomorrow then?
as a 'get out off jail free card' that's a very poor attempt. I expect better from you Phillis .
-
as a 'get out off jail free card' that's a very poor attempt. I expect better from you Phillis .
Feel free to...….Is there somebody with you in case you faint at this controversial suggestion I am about to make......Feel free to explain your assertion.
There Watty I bleeding well went and gone and said it.
-
Feel free to...….Is there somebody with you in case you faint at this controversial suggestion I am about to make......Feel free to explain your assertion.
There Watty I bleeding well went and gone and said it.
you could have said god exists outside of time and space, that's always a good one . Makes me laugh anyway . :D
-
you could have said god exists outside of time and space, that's always a good one . Makes me laugh anyway . :D
Oh no, Not Buzz Lightyear and then some...…...although if you think about it......go on I dare you......The necessary would be independent of time and space in any case.
-
Do I have the sole burden of proof? Why? Are you suggesting that the default position is that there is no God? On what grounds does that demand the status of the default position?
Not again! How many times do you need this explaining?
The default position is always to not accept a claim unless sufficient grounds are given to do so. So we default to no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes, no anything unless there are good reasons to accept it.
This really isn't hard. The alternative would be insanity (literally: having to take everything seriously without good reason).
And, no, it doesn't matter a jot how something is defined (empirically or not), the same principle must apply: unless there are good reasons to accept something, then it is rational not to accept it.
-
That just makes it worse for you. Undeniably, suicide bombers go to their deaths for their faith and now you are claiming they do not need to have had any special experience. So that means the early Christians could have gone to their deaths without having any special experiences too.
Yes, I think I got a bit muddled up yesterday. I do think suicide bombers would have had an experience (like seeing their kin suffer) as well as just faith, so I still think that being willing to die indicates an experience has been had, which though someone could be mistaken about something they have faith in would indicate that they are not lying with regard to their experience. Would someone die just for a belief about a religion? Maybe another question to ask is, would a Muslim suffer without or harming other people, which is what we are told happened to many of the first Christians.
In any case, i accept this argument may not conclusively prove that the disciples were not lying.
-
Yes, I think I got a bit muddled up yesterday. I do think suicide bombers would have had an experience (like seeing their kin suffer) as well as just faith, so I still think that being willing to die indicates an experience has been had, which though someone could be mistaken about something they have faith in would indicate that they are not lying with regard to their experience. Would someone die just for a belief about a religion? Maybe another question to ask is, would a Muslim suffer without or harming other people, which is what we are told happened to many of the first Christians.
In any case, i accept this argument may not conclusively prove that the disciples were not lying.
Or honestly mistaken.
-
It's back to definitions again i'm afraid Gordon.
Dragons and Leprechauns are defined by their empirical features.
God isn't.
What is God defined by then?
-
jeremy,
What is God defined by then?
Quite. The schtick here is, "you can't use empirical methods like reason and evidence to evaluate my claims about (my, but only my) god cos he's magic". So the question then is what should we use instead, or should we just accept that anyone who thinks he's "experienced" a god must therefore have done so?
We're going to have an awful lot of gods that way!
-
God is defined in so many different ways, depending on a person's take on a deity, which may or may not exist.
-
no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes,
These Declarations are all positive assertions and therefore have a burden of proof.
-
These Declarations are all positive assertions
Nope.
and therefore have a burden of proof.
Nope.
Although, in the case of atoms, EM radiation and black holes, there is good evidence that the positive assertion is true.
-
no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes,
These Declarations are all positive assertions and therefore have a burden of proof.
Below is what Stranger actually said rather than Vlad's straw manning of it to attempt a dishonest point.
The default position is always to not accept a claim unless sufficient grounds are given to do so. So we default to no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes, no anything unless there are good reasons to accept it.
-
These Declarations are all positive assertions and therefore have a burden of proof.
So, despite having it explained to you countless times, by several people, you still haven't grasped this simple, simple concept. When I said the default position was (for example) no atoms, I wasn't suggesting that it was to deny the possibility of atoms, just (as I said) to not accept that they exist until there is good reason to support the notion (which there now obviously is).
I thought that by including things that are obviously true, I would emphasise that point, but it seems I overestimated you. ::)
The default position with gods is exactly the same: not to deny the possibility that one or more of them exist, just to not accept that any of them do until and unless some good reason is given to take one or more of them seriously.
This isn't complicated and it is very far from the first time it's been explained to you. What's so hard?
-
Not again! How many times do you need this explaining?
The default position is always to not accept a claim unless sufficient grounds are given to do so. So we default to no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes, no anything unless there are good reasons to accept it.
This really isn't hard. The alternative would be insanity (literally: having to take everything seriously without good reason).
And, no, it doesn't matter a jot how something is defined (empirically or not), the same principle must apply: unless there are good reasons to accept something, then it is rational not to accept it.
Citations please.
But while we are waiting lets think about it.
Let's take the Dragon in the room crock. If I declare there is no dragon in the room then I have positively asserted and have a burden of proof. My proof of absence is that none of the empirically detected properties of a Dragon have been empirically detected.
If I claim the default position, as you said earlier, then you have positively asserted, with the burden of proof that entails. Whereas it easy to detect presence or absence of Dragons, the lack of empirically detectable properties of God put Dragons, leprechauns etc in a different category.
Since you are positively asserting the so called default position you are making a claim. What Good reason then do you have for no alien abductions? and what Good reasons do you believe you have for no God.
Can you give a citation for what constitutes ''good reason'' and ''sufficient grounds'' namely one we can all agree on rather than just the ''folies a plusieures'' of antitheism?
If you want a good reason for God it's the ownership by dissenting atheists of ''Contingency without necessity'' and that other crock ''things being both contingent and necessary.
Rather than fucking about with the default position being no atoms, people who we celebrate today went right ahead and proposed them.
I think we will find that ''no good reason'' will turn out to mean 'not empiricism' and 'not physicalism'
-
So, despite having it explained to you countless times, by several people, you still haven't grasped this simple, simple concept. When I said the default position was (for example) no atoms, I wasn't suggesting that it was to deny the possibility of atoms, just (as I said) to not accept that they exist until there is good reason to support the notion (which there now obviously is).
Again will you or will you not cite an agreed definition of good reason?
This is so we can test your own statements and claims by it.
-
jeremy,
Quite. The schtick here is, "you can't use empirical methods like reason and evidence to evaluate my claims about (my, but only my) god cos he's magic". So the question then is what should we use instead, or should we just accept that anyone who thinks he's "experienced" a god must therefore have done so?
We're going to have an awful lot of gods that way!
Nobody is stopping you using empirical methods to detect the necessary being (That which is necessary). I just ask where you are going to start?
It might be impossible not to smile at this sort of post if they didn't come from people who believed in contingency without necessity or something being contingent and necessary.
-
Citations please.
For what? The burden of proof?
Burden of proof (philosophy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))
But while we are waiting lets think about it.
Let's take the Dragon in the room crock. If I declare there is no dragon in the room then I have positively asserted and have a burden of proof. My proof of absence is that none of the empirically detected properties of a Dragon have been empirically detected.
But what if it's a supernatural dragon which can use magic to hide its presence? The main problem with most god claims is that they are unfalsifiable - they make no testable predictions.
If I claim the default position, as you said earlier, then you have positively asserted, with the burden of proof that entails. Whereas it easy to detect presence or absence of Dragons, the lack of empirically detectable properties of God put Dragons, leprechauns etc in a different category.
Only if the claims about dragons or leprechauns make falsifiable predictions - otherwise we are in the same territory.
Since you are positively asserting the so called default position you are making a claim. What Good reason then do you have for no alien abductions? and what Good reasons do you believe you have for no God.
Have you not actually read any of the many. many explanations? I am not saying that I can rule out alien abductions, or gods (there is no single "God" claim - and it's a distortion to talk as if there were) - just that I see no reason to take them seriously.
Can you give a citation for what constitutes ''good reason'' and ''sufficient grounds'' namely one we can all agree on rather than just the ''folies a plusieures'' of antitheism?
What's wrong with objective evidence and/or sound arguments?
If you want a good reason for God it's the ownership by dissenting atheists of ''Contingency without necessity'' and that other crock ''things being both contingent and necessary.
There is no single concept called "God". Claiming that "God" exists is all but meaningless - not even wrong. You'll have to expand on what you mean both by "God" and all the other waffle about contingency and necessity.
Rather than fucking about with the default position being no atoms, people who we celebrate today went right ahead and proposed them.
Yes, and they went and found good, objective evidence for them - just like people who claim that gods exist haven't.
-
What is God defined by then?
Stuff you can't detect with empirical measurement or observation. He is self defining or revelatory. He is described philosophically. He is the necessary being
-
For what? The burden of proof?
Burden of proof (philosophy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))
But what if it's a supernatural dragon which can use magic to hide its presence? The main problem with most god claims is that they are unfalsifiable - they make no testable predictions.
Only if the claims about dragons or leprechauns make falsifiable predictions - otherwise we are in the same territory.
Have you not actually read any of the many. many explanations? I am not saying that I can rule out alien abductions, or gods (there is no single "God" claim - and it's a distortion to talk as if there were) - just that I see no reason to take them seriously.
What's wrong with objective evidence and/or sound arguments?
There is no single concept called "God". Claiming that "God" exists is all but meaningless - not even wrong. You'll have to expand on what you mean both by "God" and all the other waffle about contingency and necessity.
Yes, and they went and found good, objective evidence for them - just like people who claim that gods exist haven't.
Sorry, I'll have to get back to you to help out with your philosophical ignorance.
Cheers
Phyllis.
-
Citations please.
But while we are waiting lets think about it.
Let's take the Dragon in the room crock. If I declare there is no dragon in the room then I have positively asserted and have a burden of proof. My proof of absence is that none of the empirically detected properties of a Dragon have been empirically detected.
You say that you are declaring there to be no dragon based on there being an absence of 'empirically detected properties', and as such you clearly must already know what these 'empirically detectable properties' are in order to declare them absent - so what are they? Sounds to me that you are failing to first consider whether 'dragon' is a meaningful and coherent claim in relation to whether or not there could be supporting evidence. You have the cart before the horse.
As usual you are railing at an idea (based on the 'dragon in my garage' analogy of Carl Sagan) without taking the time to think it through.
If I claim the default position, as you said earlier, then you have positively asserted, with the burden of proof that entails. Whereas it easy to detect presence or absence of Dragons, the lack of empirically detectable properties of God put Dragons, leprechauns etc in a different category.
If you can easily state 'empirically detectable properties' for dragons or leprechauns we'd all like to see them, since currently it seems we only have folk tale and myth to go on: and then you can explain why having 'empirically detectable properties' doesn't apply to 'God' bearing in mind your claim of having had a personal experience of 'God', since if it has no 'empirically detectable properties' how could you ever know you did have an experience of it.
Since you are positively asserting the so called default position you are making a claim. What Good reason then do you have for no alien abductions? and what Good reasons do you believe you have for no God.
Can you give a citation for what constitutes ''good reason'' and ''sufficient grounds'' namely one we can all agree on rather than just the ''folies a plusieures'' of antitheism?
If you want a good reason for God it's the ownership by dissenting atheists of ''Contingency without necessity'' and that other crock ''things being both contingent and necessary.
Rather than fucking about with the default position being no atoms, people who we celebrate today went right ahead and proposed them.
I think we will find that ''no good reason'' will turn out to mean 'not empiricism' and 'not physicalism'
This is just another example of your descent into rambling rant.
-
You say that you are declaring there to be no dragon based on there being an absence of 'empirically detected properties', and as such you clearly must already know what these 'empirically detectable properties' are in order to declare them absent - so what are they? Sounds to me that you are failing to first consider whether 'dragon' is a meaningful and coherent claim in relation to whether or not there could be supporting evidence. You have the cart before the horse.
You what????
A Dragon is a large fire breathing Lizard. There's three empirical statements for starters.
-
If you can easily state 'empirically detectable properties' for dragons or leprechauns we'd all like to see them, since currently it seems we only have folk tale and myth to go on: and then you can explain why having 'empirically detectable properties' doesn't apply to 'God' bearing in mind your claim of having had a personal experience of 'God', since if it has no 'empirically detectable properties' how could you ever know you did have an experience of it.
I've already given a reason for why the necessary being has no empirically detectable features. It is not subject to physical effects(that would make it a contingent being) so how then do you propose to detect it?
Let us suppose you suggest The universe is the necessary being? What is observed is subject to physical effects and as such is contingent......so not all the universe would be necessary and undetectable by methodological materialism or science. That would make the necessary part of the universe supernatural.
Given that being in a contingent is derived ultimately from the necessary, communication with a contingent would, I would have thought, have been a piece of cake.
Actually, that idea is practically indistinguishable from Christian panentheism.
-
You what????
A Dragon is a large fire breathing Lizard. There's three empirical statements for starters.
Excellent: so the empirical evidence, as opposed to myth, for fire-breathing dragons is what exactly?
In order to be certain that no dragons had breathed fire when and where you looked, which certainly seems to have been the case, you'd have to be at the very least satisfied that there always was a live possibility that an empirically detectable fire-breathing dragon could have paid you a visit: and if you can't countenance that possibility then perhaps your idea of a dragon as an empirically detectable large fire-breathing Lizard is unjustified speculation.
You seem to have leapt from an idea of something to that something being real without first considering that the idea itself was a serious proposition to begin with.
-
I've already given a reason for why the necessary being has no empirically detectable features. It is not subject to physical effects(that would make it a contingent being) so how then do you propose to detect it?
I wouldn't, but you still haven't explained why a necessary being can't have empirically detectable attributes, such as occupying a human body for a while: you've just conveniently decided that it doesn't (or it can't have to suit your purposes). How do you know this?
Let us suppose you suggest The universe is the necessary being? What is observed is subject to physical effects and as such is contingent......so not all the universe would be necessary and undetectable by methodological materialism or science. That would make the necessary part of the universe supernatural.
Actually, that idea is practically indistinguishable from Christian panentheism.
And is just as meaningless and incoherent.
-
Excellent: so the empirical evidence, as opposed to myth, for fire-breathing dragons is what exactly?
I'm not proposing Dragons. All i'm saying is that Dragons are easily dismissed because the empirical claims for them are not evidenced.
God though has no such empirical properties for the reasons I have repeated twice. He cannot dismissed on account of absence of evidence of claimed properties. The properties are just not claimed.
Your failure to grasp this distinction is exactly that
-
I wouldn't, but you still haven't explained why a necessary being can't have empirically detectable attributes, such as occupying a human body for a while: you've just conveniently decided that it doesn't (or it can't have to suit your purposes). How do you know this?
And is just as meaningless and incoherent.
No you can't or won't understand it. Anything affected by anything else is definitionally contingent. The idea that everything is contingent is just illogical nonsense.
It is therefore the very opposite of meaningless and incoherent. So any argument against it is meaningless and incoherent.
In terms of incarnation this is a particular case of panentheism, the idea of God being in everything.
If you will not have God as necessary the necessary on which the contingent exists must be somewhere in the universe? So where is it?
-
I'm not proposing Dragons. All i'm saying is that Dragons are easily dismissed because the empirical claims for them are not evidenced.
I'll try again and hope you'll get it yet: I'd have thought dragons are easily dismissed not because you can't find any but because the idea of them as being real is fundamentally incoherent to start with - to the extent that I'd imagine you wouldn't bother to start looking.
God though has no such empirical properties for the reasons I have repeated twice. He cannot dismissed on account of absence of evidence of claimed properties. The properties are just not claimed.
So as things stand God is not a serious proposition, since it seems you can say nothing meaningful about it since you are describing it as a 'something' in the real world but a 'something' that has no detectable properties, which is where the incoherence comes in.
-
I'll try again and hope you'll get it yet: I'd have thought dragons are easily dismissed not because you can't find any but because the idea of them as being real is fundamentally incoherent to start with -
Go on then...…. positive assertion.....justify it.
-
I'll try again and hope you'll get it yet: I'd have thought dragons are easily dismissed not because you can't find any but because the idea of them as being real is fundamentally incoherent to start with - to the extent that I'd imagine you wouldn't bother to start looking.
So as things stand God is not a serious proposition, since it seems you can say nothing meaningful about it since you are describing it as a 'something' in the real world but a 'something' that has no detectable properties, which is where the incoherence comes in.
Again, demonstrate the incoherence since you positively assert it. In otherwords differentiate it's incoherence from your lack of understanding and or your empiricism.
The meaningful is that God is what is necessary on which everything that is contingent is ultimately derived. The necessary is not contingent on what is contingent otherwise it would be contingent and not necessary.
Nothing incoherent about that has yet been demonstrated.
-
Go on then...…. positive assertion.....justify it.
Good heavens, Vlad: if an idea is incoherent white noise then, and similarly to citing a fallacy, it simply fails on that basis alone.
The only way I'd be out of step here is if there were meaningful and coherent empirical claims about dragons (or 'God') that I was missing so that I was wrongly concluding white noise even though there were real dragons/God: let me remind that it was you, and not I, who introduced the notion of rejecting something if 'empirically detectable properties' about it weren't detected, and yet you follow this by telling us that 'God' has no such properties - how convenient!
Seeking solace is an argument from contingency isn't an escape route since even if you claim the universe is contingent, so that there must be a necessary being you call God, that argument doesn't preclude this God from having some of these 'empirically detectable properties' you raised.
-
Again, demonstrate the incoherence since you positively assert it. In otherwords differentiate it's incoherence from your lack of understanding and or your empiricism.
The meaningful is that God is what is necessary on which everything that is contingent is ultimately derived. The necessary is not contingent on what is contingent otherwise it would be contingent and not necessary.
Nothing incoherent about that has yet been demonstrated.
Vlad
If something is incoherent it means that nothing meaningful can be distilled from it: your thrashing about between 'empirical detectable properties' and modal cosmological arguments just adds to the overall white noise you are so copiously generating.
Anyway - time for sleep.
-
Again, demonstrate the incoherence since you positively assert it. In otherwords differentiate it's incoherence from your lack of understanding and or your empiricism.
The meaningful is that God is what is necessary on which everything that is contingent is ultimately derived. The necessary is not contingent on what is contingent otherwise it would be contingent and not necessary.
Nothing incoherent about that has yet been demonstrated.
The definition of incoherence is:- confused, muddled, unintelligible, incomprehensible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, unconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled;
A description of many of your posts. ::)
-
Sorry, I'll have to get back to you to help out with your philosophical ignorance.
So, are you actually going to post anything resembling an argument and definition, then?
I've already given a reason for why the necessary being has no empirically detectable features. It is not subject to physical effects(that would make it a contingent being) so how then do you propose to detect it?
If you are proposing the existence of something, how we go about detecting it is your problem. If something is literally undetectable, even if it does exist, it might as well not.
Let us suppose you suggest The universe is the necessary being? What is observed is subject to physical effects and as such is contingent......so not all the universe would be necessary and undetectable by methodological materialism or science. That would make the necessary part of the universe supernatural.
Nonsense. If this is an attempt at an argument, it needs multiple definitions and seems to be missing a lot of important reasoning.
God though has no such empirical properties for the reasons I have repeated twice. He cannot dismissed on account of absence of evidence of claimed properties. The properties are just not claimed.
If your claim makes no testable predictions, then you need to provide some other reason to take it seriously. This isn't complicated.
Anything affected by anything else is definitionally contingent. The idea that everything is contingent is just illogical nonsense.
Why?
I think you need to stop scattering disjointed comments all over the thread and put together one coherent argument - making sure you properly define all your terms.
Any chance of that?
-
Stranger,
I think you need to stop scattering disjointed comments all over the thread and put together one coherent argument - making sure you properly define all your terms.
He never will. His schtick is to misrepresent (wilfully I think) every argument that undoes him – for example by conflating “there are no coherent reasons to believe X” with “there is no X” – and to scatter barely understood terms in place of arguments of his own. Accusing someone else of ignorance of philosophy is beyond laughable.
So far as I can tell, under all that scattergun drivel (“necessary”, “contingent” etc) is just plain, common-or-garden special pleading – “the universe must have been caused by something, that something is the same god with which I happen to be most familiar, and that god is also itself magic because it's exempt from being caused by something else”.
It’s incoherence squared, and dishonest incoherence at that but it’s pointless to expect anything different.
-
Stuff you can't detect with empirical measurement or observation.
Such as what? If you can't detect it, how can you be sure it exists?
He is self defining or revelatory. He is described philosophically. He is the necessary being
Surely you know what his "self definition" is though. If you don't, how can you be sure that it is God hat you have "detected"?
-
Phillis Tyne is a God detecting tool .
who knew?
-
Walter,
Phillis Tyne is a God detecting tool .
who knew?
According to Vlad, he does.
Because his efforts here are so incoherent (and dishonest) it's impossible to know what he actually thinks, but it seems to be something like:
1. God is necessary philosophically.
Utter nonsense. He has no understanding of any philosophy - what he seems to be misdescribing with the is term is the bad argument that there must have been a first cause that was itself somehow exempt from the first cause rule.
2. I had an experience of "God".
Not something he can know to be true, not least because he has no interest in eliminating the various non-divine possible explanations for that experience.
3. "Therefore, that must be the same god that philosophy says is necessary.
Finally he combines two pieces of bad thinking to produce a nonsense conclusion (ie, rubbish in = rubbish out).
It's weird stuff, but there it is anyway I guess.
-
thanks for the clarification ,blue. However , I still think he's a tool !
-
Walter,
thanks for the clarification ,blue. However , I still think he's a tool !
Spirit level?
-
He is self defining or revelatory. He is described philosophically. He is the necessary being
However, the only way any of us can be made aware of this self-definition of your god is through the Judaeo/Christian scriptures. And there you have a myriad of supposed "self-definitions", which differ very widely. You might decide to choose the descriptions which appear more 'evolved' out of this smorgasbord, but that would simply be your choice (probably espoused by a lot of Christians, but by no means all). There is no way of telling what is God's true 'self-definition' out of all this. 'Revelation'? Other religions claim revelations, too, in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways, which in turn differ from the Judaeo/Christian descriptions.
"He is described philosophically". Well, Aquinas - to whom you seem indebted - had a go at it, deriving his arguments Muslim sources. But all this doesn't get you much further than the position so clearly summarised by bluehillside above (#289). Well, it would be nice to think that 'God' was the necessary being, but since all the descriptions and arguments for such are so multifarious, contradictory and so lamentably fail in giving adequate explanations for suffering (theodicy), it is not surprising that they are reasonably dismissed as so much woo.
-
Walter,
Spirit level?
laughing out loud funny ,blue :D
-
The definition of incoherence is:- confused, muddled, unintelligible, incomprehensible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, unconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled;
A description of many of your posts. ::)
They are all synonyms for incoherent (adjective). Incoherence is a noun.
-
What is God defined by then?
God is the source of all existance
-
God is the source of all existance
How do you know?
-
God is the source of all existance
No, it should be clear from the context of the post that I meant what are the properties that define God, not what does (did) God do. How would you know an entity you met is God?
-
God is the source of all existance
Have you ever thought of taking a holiday in India Alan I'm sure you would be well received by our Sriram only you two seems to me share so much in common like skulking away when ever the 'E'word comes up.
Commiserations Alan, ippy
P S:(Evidence).