Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What eye witness accounts?
I have 10,000 eye witness accounts that say differently.

You cannot check them of course, just like your alleged accounts cannot be checked.

It is a CLAIM of eye witness accounts not the ACTUAL accounts so they can be ignored unless you allow my greater number of 10,000 to count

10,000 eyewitnesses to what?

[Alan Burns]

What eye witness accounts?
I have 10,000 eye witness accounts that say differently.

You cannot check them of course, just like your alleged accounts cannot be checked.

It is a CLAIM of eye witness accounts not the ACTUAL accounts so they can be ignored unless you allow my greater number of 10,000 to count

But can you honestly equate this with the case for leprechauns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Although against that there is what Paul Davies refers to as the law of mediocrity where so far every part of the observed universe follows the laws of physics.

First, if he does say that then he’s as daft as you are for being in thrall to the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. Whether or not you find something to be mediocre tells you nothing about the truth of the matter.

Second, if he really thinks a universe that “follows the laws of physics” is mediocre then he needs to get out more. If you genuinely don’t find the findings from Hubble, Cassini, Voyager etc to be jaw-dropping compared with the tawdry tales of iron-age tribes about blood sacrifices and the like then you need to re-evaluate your wonder index.

I wonder if you aren't straw clutching in this post.

Then wonder no more – I was merely correcting Alan Burns on one of his many mistakes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have often compared my Christian faith to a belief in leprechauns...

No I haven't. What I have done though is to compare the arguments made for these claims and, when they are the same, concluded that they are probably bad arguments. Although the point is utterly lost on Vlad, the fact remains that a bad argument for one faith belief dos not somehow become a good argument for a different faith belief. If we take one of your favourite fallacies for example – the argument from personal incredulity – then if you want use it to lead to your god, you cannot deny the same argument to someone else when it leads him to leprechauns.

It would really help you a lot if you could understand this   

...but in doing this you are exercising your God given gift of free will by choosing to ignore all the available evidence and eye witness accounts.

Priceless! I just pointed out your use of the fallacy of reification, and your attempt to engage with it another example of the same fallacy!

In this nicest possible way Alan, it really would help you if you invested some time in understanding some basics about logic before you post again.

Really, it would.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But can you honestly equate this with the case for leprechauns?

If the argument(s) in each case are identical, then yes.

[BeRational]

But can you honestly equate this with the case for leprechauns?

I have 20,000 eye witnesses of Leprechauns

[Gordon]

What evidence, and on what basis has this evidence been critiqued in relation to the risks of human artifice?

For example, don't forget to explain how you know claims of there being witnesses are factually accurate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, if he does say that then he’s as daft as you are for being in thrall to the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. Whether or not you find something to be mediocre tells you nothing about the truth of the matter.

Second, if he really thinks a universe that “follows the laws of physics” is mediocre then he needs to get out more. If you genuinely don’t find the findings from Hubble, Cassini, Voyager etc to be jaw-dropping compared with the tawdry tales of iron-age tribes about blood sacrifices and the like then you need to re-evaluate your wonder index.

Then wonder no more – I was merely correcting Alan Burns on one of his many mistakes.

The law of mediocrity isn't about how jaw dropping the universe is or isn't but how uniform it is.

[torridon]

I have 20,000 eye witnesses of Leprechauns

I think we can easily trump that with the number of alien abduction witnesses.  The USA alone numbers over 3 million individuals with vivid claims, not just as passive witnesses to an inexplicable event, but personally involved, being kidnapped and often subjected to invasive medical procedures by extraterrestrial beings.  By any measure, this dwarfs the claims of resurrection and yet we don't take them seriously.   There have always been people making fantastic claims, it is nothing new, although nowadays we are more likely to treat them sceptically.

[Spud]

I have 20,000 eye witnesses of Leprechauns

What would be the point of, say, a flying pig, and what is the point of Jesus' resurrection?

[Alan Burns]

and what is the point of Jesus' resurrection?

You will find out one day, but if you want to know now, try reading the Bible.

[Nearly Sane]

You will find out one day, but if you want to know now, try reading the Bible.

I think you are missing Spud's point here, AB. Spud's a believer and I was think is suggesting that because of what he sees as the point of the resurrection that somehow gives more weight to the 'eye witnesses'. It doesn't. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think we can easily trump that with the number of alien abduction witnesses.  The USA alone numbers over 3 million individuals with vivid claims, not just as passive witnesses to an inexplicable event, but personally involved, being kidnapped and often subjected to invasive medical procedures by extraterrestrial beings.  By any measure, this dwarfs the claims of resurrection and yet we don't take them seriously.   There have always been people making fantastic claims, it is nothing new, although nowadays we are more likely to treat them sceptically.

Analogies are alright but you have to have fairly good one's.
If you are talking about encounters far more have reported an encounter with God in Christ than perhaps any other description of God or god...than alien abduction.

Invasive medical procedures should be investigable. Jesus I believed proffered his injuries for inspection.

[Gordon]

Jesus I believed proffered his injuries for inspection.

So the story goes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are missing Spud's point here, AB. Spud's a believer and I was think is suggesting that because of what he sees as the point of the resurrection that somehow gives more weight to the 'eye witnesses'. It doesn't.

I think it does since it is consistent with his experience.

[wigginhall]

Analogies are alright but you have to have fairly good one's.
If you are talking about encounters far more have reported an encounter with God in Christ than perhaps any other description of God or god...than alien abduction.

Invasive medical procedures should be investigable. Jesus I believed proffered his injuries for inspection.

So are you going off numbers now?   In other words, the more common religions are 'truer'?   So Judaism is a bit less true than Sikhism?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What evidence, and on what basis has this evidence been critiqued in relation to the risks of human artifice?

For example, don't forget to explain how you know claims of there being witnesses are factually accurate.

But research on conspiracies has been mentioned Gordon.

You have, on the other hand done nothing....You have de facto suggested an alternative history. Let's have your account and subject it to consideration of whether the subsequent history is consistent with your alternative.

It isn't obvious that ''of course a story like this can survive'' that seems to be hindsight.

You seem firmly fixed in these things don't happen (not proper science)and the staff aren't doing their jobs...i.e.....when Gordon tells you to prove his case you jolly well do it (managerial expectations)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So are you going off numbers now?   In other words, the more common religions are 'truer'?   So Judaism is a bit less true than Sikhism?

If you actually came off the bardo and read the thread I come in at the end of an escalation by be Rational and Torridon. You would have noticed if you weren't so keen on being a ninja monk.

Aaayeeeee huh huh nooooooooooowaaaaaaaaahhh.

[wigginhall]

If you actually came off the bardo and read the thread I come in at the end of an escalation by be Rational and Torridon. You would have noticed if you weren't so keen on being a ninja monk.

Aaayeeeee huh huh nooooooooooowaaaaaaaaahhh.

I just noticed that you said 'far more have reported an encounter with God in Christ  ...', so presumably you think that quantity is about truth. 

[Gordon]

But research on conspiracies has been mentioned Gordon.

And?

You have, on the other hand done nothing....You have de facto suggested an alternative history. Let's have your account and subject it to consideration of whether the subsequent history is consistent with your alternative.

No I haven't - I've just asked you guys to explain how you've excluded the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies.

It isn't obvious that ''of course a story like this can survive'' that seems to be hindsight.

Translation please.

You seem firmly fixed in these things don't happen (not proper science)and the staff aren't doing their jobs...i.e.....when Gordon tells you to prove his case you jolly well do it (managerial bollocks)

Nope - I've simply asked you guys to explain how you've excluded the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies. Any chance of a relevant reply?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The law of mediocrity isn't about how jaw dropping the universe is or isn't but how uniform it is.

There is no law of mediocrity. Possibly you'e thinking of the principle of mediocrity (which pretty much says the opposite of what you'd want it to say by the way, namely that there's nothing special about the fact of us or of anything else)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So are you going off numbers now?   In other words, the more common religions are 'truer'?   So Judaism is a bit less true than Sikhism?

Well....we know that in certain ways of looking at the world witness accounts DO matter.
However we have to distinguish between witnesses to the bodily resurrection and witnesses to the ascended Jesus here.

Witnesses to the resurrection are the focus here. An account of the history is submitted. The epistles were never intended for posterity but talk of a community for which the bodily resurrection is history.

Opposition to this de facto proposes another version of history. I believe proponents of this should state what it is and how the subsequent history accommodates it....otherwise they are just arguing from disbelief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There is no law of mediocrity. Possibly you'e thinking of the principle of mediocrity (which pretty much says the opposite of what you'd want it to say by the way, namely that there's nothing special about the fact of us or of anything else)?

At last you've retracted a dumb interpretation you have made.

The principle of mediocrity is precisely about the uniformity of everything....it militates against your principle of unknown unknowns (How can they be scientific?) as if there wasn't enough to militate against the relevance of those bad boys.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Analogies are alright but you have to have fairly good one's.
If you are talking about encounters far more have reported an encounter with God in Christ than perhaps any other description of God or god...than alien abduction.

Invasive medical procedures should be investigable. Jesus I believed proffered his injuries for inspection.

Oh dear.

First, “far more” people have reported “encounters” with whatever god happens to be most familiar to them.

Second, if you really want to play that numbers game then you lose.

Third, you’re back into the argumentum ad populum again. Torri wa just playing on AB’s turf by pointing out that if he really wanted to follow that line then he’d have no basis on which to eliminate other popular beliefs. You missed the point though by looking for a larger set with a common opinion as if the argumentum ad populum was actually a good argument. 

Oh, and alien surgery wouldn't be investigable at all if we use your approach and throw magic into the mix such that all traces of it disappear.

Job done!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And?

You seem to be in denial that anybody has looked at the question of whether there has been human failing in epistiolary and gospel accounts. We've been on to it...Have you since you suggest them?