Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

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.

You seem to be advocating the relativist fallacy on behalf of this community: all you're saying here, on behalf of this community, is that the resurrection was true for them but that doesn't make their beliefs historical fact. You've still got the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies to address.

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.

Don't be silly: asking you to demonstrate your claims are indeed historical fact does not require that I need to propose any alternative versions of history.

So - about these risks I mentioned?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Oh dear. It was your unsubstantiated quote, so there’s no “dumb interpretation” and no withdrawal.

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.

It tells you nothing about the phenomenon of unknown unknowns, which is a point in logic. How would you know whether the "mediocre" stuff out there just hasn't been found yet?

Perhaps if you looked it up you wouldn’t get it wrong again? PZ Myers is good on this by the way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear.

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


Job done!

Evidence might be nice. What about in pantheons? What about Gods for whom encounter is not part of the package? What about religions where you are god? what about religions where everything is god.

What about the spread of Christianity in a veritable bouillabaise of divinities?

Job done?.....Just taken a dump?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be advocating the relativist fallacy on behalf of this community: all you're saying here, on behalf of this community, is that the resurrection was true for them but that doesn't make their beliefs historical fact. You've still got the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies to address.

Don't be silly: asking you to demonstrate your claims are indeed historical fact does not require proposing any alternative versions of history.

So - about these risks I mentioned?

I'm afraid they do. You cannot assume human failing without showing where the failing is.
You cannot assume it is a false history without putting an alternative.

You already laid your cards on the table Gordon when you declared that these things don't happen. Do you retract that? If not you need to say what did happen and put it up to scrutiny otherwise you are just dodging about.

Also research on conspiracy theory has been pointed out to you and yet here you are denying it again!!!

You are acting like an old vinyl stuck in the groove.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

PZ Myers is good on this by the way.

Lightweight.

[Gordon]

I'm afraid they do. You cannot assume human failing without showing where the failing is.
You cannot assume it is a false history without putting an alternative.

You're being evasive and silly, Vlad. I simply raised known risks involving human artifice and have asked how you've addressed these risks - I don't need to offer alternative versions of history.

You already laid your cards on the table Gordon when you declared that these things don't happen. Do you retract that? If not you need to say what did happen and put it up to scrutiny otherwise you are just dodging about.

I've said that I can see no good reasons to accept the resurrection of Jesus claim as being historical fact since the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies remain issues that you guys seem unable or unwilling to confront - the burden of proof is yours and not mine.

Also research on conspiracy theory has been pointed out to you and yet here you are denying it again!!!

You've yet to explain the relevance of this.

You are acting like an old vinyl stuck in the groove.

No doubt: but you can fix that by simply answering what I've asked instead of evading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence might be nice. What about in pantheons? What about Gods for whom encounter is not part of the package? What about religions where you are god? what about religions where everything is god.

What about them? The other Abrahamic faiths for starters all claim encounter stories.

The point that’s eluding you though is that truth isn’t a numbers game, and moreover that your “encounter” schtick would have much more force if, say, you could find a previously undiscovered tribesman who’d encountered the same god that you think you’ve met.

What about the spread of Christianity in a veritable bouillabaise of divinities?

What about it? We haven’t had a survivor bias attempt though for a while. Good effort.

Look, here’s your problem. A tiny number of people allegedly made it some 800 miles to Corinth decades after the supposed event and told Paul that lots of people had seen something miraculous. Paul then wrote it down. That’s it. That’s all you have. If you tried that in court as evidence for a miracle you’d be laughed out of the place, and yet on that gossamer thread of possibility you hang an entire belief system.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're being evasive and silly, Vlad. I simply raised known risks involving human artifice and have asked how you've addressed these risks - I don't need to offer alternative versions of history.

I've said that I can see no good reasons to accept the resurrection of Jesus claim as being historical fact since the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies remain issues that you guys seems unable or unwilling to confront - the burden of proof is yours and not mine.

You've yet to explain the relevance of this.

No doubt: but you can fix that by simply answering what I've asked instead of evading.

Evidence is there in the form of epistiolary evidence and the nature of the community. The counter to human failing is there in the argument that Jewish and Roman authorities could, would and should have exploited it but didn't. Research into conspiracy theories give this one 25 years survival. We should have heard the last of this a few centuries ago.

If you do not accept this you have to say why. You are also de facto suggesting an alternative history. Unlike philosophical questions i.e. could a universe exist without a God, there can be no gap in the history. History comes loaded with a burden to state what it was particularly if you cannot accept an account of the history.

I don't really need to ask for the reasons why you not only reject the account you keep denying it has even been given. You are never going to own them though.

But you do, I feel, need to be called out on what is poor methodology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Lightweight

So a semi-literate inveterate fibber on a message board calls the widely published associate-professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris “lightweight” eh?

Well there you go.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What about them? The other Abrahamic faiths for starters all claim encounter stories.

Encounter with what though?
Your deliberate ignorance of religion precludes you from answering that.

Don't forget there are religions for whom getting to the head honcho is never on the cards.

As for the monotheisms like Judaism, Christianity does not reject those encounters and since they are monotheistic, what other god would be encountered anyway?

I look forward to hearing your actual knowledge of what you purport to be talking about rather than the grindings of barrels being scraped.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

So a semi-literate inveterate fibber on a message board calls the widely published associate-professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris “lightweight” eh?

Well there you go.

I never knew he was an associate professor of theology.
Read Feser, also an associate professor, on 'The Myers Shuffle'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A tiny number of people allegedly made it some 800 miles to Corinth decades after the supposed event and told Paul that lots of people had seen something miraculous. Paul then wrote it down. That’s it. That’s all you have.

No...That's all you have.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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   

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.

I must admit that I am at a loss as to how to get through to someone who is able to deny the truth of his own ability to make conscious choices in order to fit in with current limits of human understanding.  My faith is entirely driven by the ever increasing depth of my relationship with God, but unfortunately there are no words available to describe this relationship and the amazing awareness it brings.  So I resort to trying to show that science and human logic are not at odds with Christian faith, but entirely compatible with it.  There are no real barriers, just the veils of deception which seem so prevalent in our increasingly secular society.

[Gordon]

Evidence is there in the form of epistiolary evidence and the nature of the community.

You still need to set out this evidence and explain how you have evaluated it: the 'nature of the community' may be evidence that they sincerely believed 'x' but this isn't evidence that 'x' is true: but you know this.

The counter to human failing is there in the argument that Jewish and Roman authorities could, would and should have exploited it but didn't.

From the accounts the former group saw Jesus as an annoyance to be got rid of, and while the latter made little fuss at the time they did indeed exploit Christianity subsequently in their political/power arrangements but this says nothing about the veracity of the content of the NT; you know this too.

Research into conspiracy theories give this one 25 years survival.

Citation please.

We should have heard the last of this a few centuries ago.

Yet we haven't, but then again the reasons for the survival of Christianity don't require the divine bits to be historical fact.

If you do not accept this you have to say why. You are also de facto suggesting an alternative history.

You're misrepresenting what I've clearly explained previously.

Unlike philosophical questions i.e. could a universe exist without a God, there can be no gap in the history. History comes loaded with a burden to state what it was particularly if you cannot accept an account of the history.

History is full of gaps, Vlad, and accounts may not always be reliable given the risks - the accounts of the Hillsborough disaster are a recent example of the problems.

I don't really need to ask for the reasons why you not only reject the account you keep denying it has even been given. You are never going to own them though.

But you do I feel need to be called out on what is poor methodology.

I think you'll find, Vlad, the issue with methodology is yours since you don't seem to have one: if you did then you'd be able to explain how you've excluded the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies.

[Stranger]

Read Feser, also an associate professor, on 'The Myers Shuffle'.

So I've now ploughed through two of Feser's online articles in which he goes on and on and on about how bad the objections to god are and how there are actually very good arguments for god, but apparently can't be bothered to actually present any of the good arguments that he claims exist.

Can you present any of his arguments or do you have a link to anything in which he actually presents one?

[Stranger]

I must admit that I am at a loss as to how to get through to someone who is able to deny the truth of his own ability to make conscious choices in order to fit in with current human understanding.

This is an inaccurate representation. The question is about the nature of "conscious choices" - you are asserting that they can't be the result of a physical system but have failed to present a logical argument to back it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still need to set out this evidence and explain how you have evaluated it: the 'nature of the community' may be evidence that they sincerely believed 'x' but this isn't evidence that 'x' is true: but you know this.

From the accounts the former group saw Jesus as an annoyance to be got rid of, and while the latter made little fuss at the time they did indeed exploit Christianity subsequently in their political/power arrangements but this says nothing about the veracity of the content of the NT; you know this too.

Citation please.

Yet we haven't, but then again the reasons for the survival of Christianity don't require the divine bits to be historical fact.

You're misrepresenting what I've clearly explained previously.

History is full of gaps, Vlad, and accounts may not always be reliable given the risks - the accounts of the Hillsborough disaster are a recent example of the problems.

I think you'll find, Vlad, the issue with methodology is yours since you don't seem to have one: if you did then you'd be able to explain how you've excluded the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies.

There are no gaps in history because history is whatever happened Gordon so if you cannot accept a given history you need to provide an alternative.

One evaluates the history thus. It has become part of an established community within living memory which has provided posterity accidentily with the method of checking it's key precepts. There are also other communities for whom the only issue is the interpretation of the epistiolary accounts.

How successful was the principle of exposing hoaxes at the time.....not very in this case.

What would be the motivation for a hoax such as this at a time when greek philosophy was in and the prevalent religious culture was against this sort of thing.

You, on the other hand, have given nothing Gordon and that's just you ''being managerial''.

Citations to follow.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Citation for lifespan of conspiracies

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So I've now ploughed through two of Feser's online articles in which he goes on and on and on about how bad the objections to god are and how there are actually very good arguments for god, but apparently can't be bothered to actually present any of the good arguments that he claims exist.

Can you present any of his arguments or do you have a link to anything in which he actually presents one?

His detailed expositions are available on youtube. He also refers to where his detailed expositions for the arguments can be found in his online arguments.

I grant he does attack the New atheist tendency to the cult of celebrity.

[SusanDoris]

Some kind of stranger #16716 and #16717

A noble effort indeed!! *applause*

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence is there in the form of epistiolary evidence and the nature of the community.

“Epistolary evidence” just means that Paul wrote letters about what he’d been told, and “the nature of the community” – credulous, fearful, superstitious etc – is one of your problems.

The counter to human failing is there in the argument that Jewish and Roman authorities could, would and should have exploited it but didn't.

How would you suggest that they did that decades after the event, and why would they have bothered with this one miracle story vs all the rest?

Research into conspiracy theories give this one 25 years survival. We should have heard the last of this a few centuries ago.

While conspiracy is one real world possibility, it’s by no means the only one.  The, what, half a dozen or so maximum who supposedly spoke to Paul would hardly constitute a conspiracy in any case – even if all of them had been present at the event, that says nothing about the risk of mistake a trick etc.

If you do not accept this you have to say why.

I just did: it’s another straw man.

You are also de facto suggesting an alternative history. Unlike philosophical questions i.e. could a universe exist without a God, there can be no gap in the history. History comes loaded with a burden to state what it was particularly if you cannot accept an account of the history.

I have no idea what you’re even to try to say here. If Archduke Franz Ferdinand hadn’t have been shot, there’d have been a different history too no doubt. So what?

I don't really need to ask for the reasons why you not only reject the account you keep denying it has even been given. You are never going to own them though.

More gibberish. I reject the truthfulness of “the” account because the evidence bar for it is set so desperately low.

But you do I feel need to be called out on what is poor methodology.

Such a shame you have no grasp of irony. That’s a doozy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Encounter with what though?

With whatever they think they’ve had an encounter with. Same as you.

Your deliberate ignorance of religion precludes you from answering that.

Your deliberate ignorance of logic precludes you from realising that the object of the faith belief is irrelevant to epistemology of the claim.

Don't forget there are religions for whom getting to the head honcho is never on the cards.

More irrelevance.

As for the monotheisms like Judaism, Christianity does not reject those encounters and since they are monotheistic, what other god would be encountered anyway?

The gods with whatever characteristics those faiths claim to be the real ones.

I look forward to hearing your actual knowledge of what you purport to be talking about rather than the grindings of barrels being scraped.

I look forward to you finally grasping that whatever god you think you’ve “encountered” tells you nothing about whether or not you’ve actually encountered any of them. You try this a lot – decide that the outcome is one you like, then try to back fit it to a bad argument as if it in some mysterious way that turns the bad argument into a good one.

It doesn’t.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No...That's all you have.

It's all anyone has.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Can you present any of his arguments or do you have a link to anything in which he actually presents one?

I'm pretty sure that he has no idea what Feser's arguments are. He just knows that he's a theist too, and that he's all, you know, "professory" so that'll do. He's been asked to tell us what he thinks the arguments are several times, but always takes the easy way out of pointing us to YouTube videos.

What I have seen of Feser seems to be almost entirely ad hom attacks, but I've yet to find anything substantive. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are no gaps in history because history is whatever happened Gordon so if you cannot accept a given history you need to provide an alternative.

We really, really need a face palm emoji for stuff like this. Still, a cracking candidate for the "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" site if nothing else.