Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

Likewise, a reader of the first copy of Mark 10 could check for himself if Bartimaeus had been healed, which would give him enough reason to believe the rest of Mark's account.

Theoretically true, although the points I raised about the gospel attributed to John remain. Now the original of the gospel attributed to Mark is purported to have been from about 70CE, so that's slightly nearer in time compared to the gospel attributed to John. But we are still 40 years after the purported events. But the geography is more challenging - the gospel attributed to Mark is considered likely to have been written in Rome, which is even further from where these claimed eye witnesses would have been. And the issue of language remains - the language spoken by the early readers and the language spoken by the purported eye witnesses is different.

But there is a further issue - we have no idea whether the text in Mark 10 was even present in any early version - we don't have early extant copies for most of the gospel attributed to Mark, indeed for much of it the earliest copies we can actually consider (and therefore be confident about the text) are from about 300 years after the purported events. And we know that there is evidence of significant alteration in the text - including the humdinger of a completely new ending added to 'beef-up' the resurrection claim.

But even if we accept the theoretical possibility that an early reader could have travelled half way across the Mediterranean to interview the purported eye witnesses - do you have any evidence that they did. Seems to me these are faith claims, and accepted/rejected on the basis of faith, not on the basis of evidence.

And that leads me to my final point - if there were all these eye witnesses to astonishing miracles, how come christianity failed to get any meaningful foothold in the place where it arose (where those eye witnesses actually lived). Those most likely to have been witnesses to Jesus' life and teaching by and large did not accept that he was anything special, did not accept him to be the son of god, did not join the developing christian movement. Weird if they were witnesses to astonishing miracles!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You think the article supports your assertion that Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a fallacy. It doesn't.

Oh, and as you just ignored it - would you accept my claim that I'd been kidnapped by aliens on the same evidential basis that you'd accept that I'd bought a pair of shoes? Why not?

It is a fallacy based on the subjective nature, of the term extraordinary, which the author calls a slippery term. What then is extraordinary?
I think you will find that varies between people and that people are probably inconsistent in it's application. That is if they aren't shamanically hurling it around or guessing it up as an axiom.

Bayes theorem employs probability and the improbability of God has been discussed on this forum by atheists...and not always in your favour.

The author talks about the problems with probability in the part you've failed to mention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is a fallacy based on the subjective nature, of the term extraordinary, which the author calls a slippery term. What then is extraordinary?
I think you will find that varies between people and that people are probably inconsistent in it's application. That is if they aren't shamanically hurling it around or guessing it up as an axiom.

Bayes theorem employs probability and the improbability of God has been discussed on this forum by atheists...and not always in your favour.

The author talks about the problems with probability in the part you've failed to mention.

Wrong again, and the article addresses this too in any case here:

“In other words, claims require extraordinary evidence if they entail the falsehood of established scientific results that are themselves extensively tested and well understood. The existence of ghosts would be just such a claim, demanding revolutionary changes to the foundations of physics and biology. The evidence would need somehow to outweigh or account for all the physical and biological evidence supporting our existing expectation that ghosts are impossible.”

For “ghosts” you could equally insert “god”, "resurrection", "miracles" etc here.

Do you ever actually read the articles you cite that then blow up in your face?

[Gordon]

It is a fallacy based on the subjective nature, of the term extraordinary, which the author calls a slippery term. What then is extraordinary?
I think you will find that varies between people and that people are probably inconsistent in it's application. That is if they aren't shamanically hurling it around or guessing it up as an axiom.

Bayes theorem employs probability and the improbability of God has been discussed on this forum by atheists...and not always in your favour.

The author talks about the problems with probability in the part you've failed to mention.

Don't know about you, but since he talks about signals from aliens and billions of molecules, then I'd say that he citing of 'extraordinary' or 'improbable' is in relation to naturalistic claims and not to supernatural claims.

If you were under the impression that you could somehow sneak the supernatural into what he is saying then probability is irrelevant anyway. You've cited two links today which are of no help to you whatsoever. 

[Enki]

Alan,

In your post 49924, you said:

Lennox reaffirms the case that Christian faith is evidence based - not blind faith.

which was in reference to your link:

Lennox vs Dawkins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13GvfTexSoc

to which I replied to the effect that he gives no evidence whatever, only asserting his belief that it is evidence based. As you did not reply to this, I assume that you accept what I said. If not, please show Lennox's evidence in this video.

However in your post 49949 you recommended part 2 of your original link:

part 2 just out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcpMUcegeq4

and this was as a response to Blue's request for evidence.

So I watched it in anticpation. Sadly I still found no evidence whatever, not only in relation to the Christian faith, but in theism generally. I did find plenty of conjecture, but conjecture isn't evidence, Alan.

let's take Lennox's view of the fine tuning of the universe, which is one of his central themes in this video. Strangely he discounts the idea of 'multiverses'(which one could possibly accept as conjecture but is accepted as a possibility by many scientists) and accepts another conjecture, that of Arno Penzias, who suggests there is a similarity to of a cosmic beginning to the concept of divine creation, even though it is not even established that the universe began with the big bang.

And now let's deal with Lennox's point about the idea that rationality cannot come from a universe of an unguided, random, mindless process of atoms and never mentions the important point about the reliability of this process. He makes this a point as a point of logic. However he  does not establish that it is impossible that rational thought cannot come from such sources. He simply suggests he cannot believe it. That deals with incredulity, not logic.

[Maeght]

It is a fallacy based on the subjective nature, of the term extraordinary, which the author calls a slippery term. What then is extraordinary?
I think you will find that varies between people and that people are probably inconsistent in it's application. That is if they aren't shamanically hurling it around or guessing it up as an axiom.

Bayes theorem employs probability and the improbability of God has been discussed on this forum by atheists...and not always in your favour.

The author talks about the problems with probability in the part you've failed to mention.

You think miracles shouldn't be considered extraordinary?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You think miracles shouldn't be considered extraordinary?

Not saying that and when I do say extraordinary, I am being subjective. The problem is more acute when it comes to defining what is meant by extraordinary evidence.

Sagan never said, nor has anyone around here. Perhaps you could enlighten us on definitions?

I consider a miracle as a divine intervention. How are you defining it?

[Maeght]

Not saying that and when I do say extraordinary, I am being subjective. The problem is more acute when it comes to defining what is meant by extraordinary evidence.

Sagan never said, nor has anyone around here. Perhaps you could enlighten us on definitions?

I consider a miracle as a divine intervention. How are you defining it?

The discussion was about miracles which you seem to consider extraordinary. Do you agree that evidence for miracles needs to be extraordinary?

We'll go with your definition of miracles for this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not saying that and when I do say extraordinary, I am being subjective. The problem is more acute when it comes to defining what is meant by extraordinary evidence.

Sagan never said, nor has anyone around here. Perhaps you could enlighten us on definitions?

I consider a miracle as a divine intervention. How are you defining it?

Before you try to slide away from your mistake, what the author actually cautions against is applying Sagan’s dictum only “in a rather less insightful way”:

“Unfortunately, the famous dictum about extraordinary claims (sometimes known as Sagan’s dictum or Sagan’s standard) is often wielded in a rather less insightful way.”

While at the same time telling us that:

“On the other hand, if by “extraordinary” we mean improbable, then Sagan’s dictum is certainly correct.”

He then gives us a use that, to use his term, would be “insightful”:

“In other words, claims require extraordinary evidence if they entail the falsehood of established scientific results that are themselves extensively tested and well understood. The existence of ghosts would be just such a claim, demanding revolutionary changes to the foundations of physics and biology. The evidence would need somehow to outweigh or account for all the physical and biological evidence supporting our existing expectation that ghosts are impossible.”

Which us exactly the way it’s been used here. 

Short version: your argument (such as it is) is toast.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Celebrating the 2000th page of the searching for God thread.

[ProfessorDavey]

Celebrating the 2000th page of the searching for God thread.

Have we come to an agreed conclusion

[Alan Burns]

AB,

To my knowledge, no it hasn't. What you've actually done is to assert consciousness being a materialistic phenomenon as "totally impossible" and, when asked to justify that claim, you've only attempted to shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you "precisely" how materialistic consciousness occurs.

I'll give you a clue: when your justifying "argument" for supernatural consciousness has a question mark at the end of it, it's not an argument.

So, and once again with feeling, what is this supposed logic that you claim to have?

You need to be brain dead not to comprehend the logical impossibility for rational thoughts and verifiable conclusions to emerge from the consequences physically driven reactions beyond your conscious control.  No doubt you will choose to perform consciously driven mental gymnastics in your endeavour to prove me wrong and squeeze the capabilities of our human human mind to fit in with the materialistic scenario by denying the reality of our freedom to think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The discussion was about miracles which you seem to consider extraordinary. Do you agree that evidence for miracles needs to be extraordinary?

Again, what do you define as extraordinary evidence?Did you not answer that because, as I suspect, you can't?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You need to be brain dead not to comprehend…

Charming. How very Christian of you.

…the logical impossibility for rational thoughts and verifiable conclusions to emerge from the consequences physically driven reactions beyond your conscious control.  No doubt you will choose to perform consciously driven mental gymnastics in your endeavour to prove me wrong and squeeze the capabilities of our human human mind to fit in with the materialistic scenario by denying the reality of our freedom to think.

You told us that you have a logical argument to justify your assertion about this supposed impossibility. Where is it?

[Gordon]

You need to be brain dead not to comprehend the logical impossibility for rational thoughts and verifiable conclusions to emerge from the consequences physically driven reactions beyond your conscious control.  No doubt you will choose to perform consciously driven mental gymnastics in your endeavour to prove me wrong and squeeze the capabilities of our human human mind to fit in with the materialistic scenario by denying the reality of our freedom to think.

Nice ad hom, Alan - not your usual style.

Every thought you think is 'materialistic' - whether you like it or not. It's just material biology you know.

[Maeght]

Again, what do you define as extraordinary evidence?Did you not answer that because, as I suspect, you can't?

I didn't attempt to answer because it is a diversion from the point I was making.

[Maeght]

You need to be brain dead not to comprehend the logical impossibility for rational thoughts and verifiable conclusions to emerge from the consequences physically driven reactions beyond your conscious control.  No doubt you will choose to perform consciously driven mental gymnastics in your endeavour to prove me wrong and squeeze the capabilities of our human human mind to fit in with the materialistic scenario by denying the reality of our freedom to think.

In your opinion. How about some facts to support your claims?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Before you try to slide away from your mistake, what the author actually cautions against is applying Sagan’s dictum only “in a rather less insightful way”:

“Unfortunately, the famous dictum about extraordinary claims (sometimes known as Sagan’s dictum or Sagan’s standard) is often wielded in a rather less insightful way.”

While at the same time telling us that:

“On the other hand, if by “extraordinary” we mean improbable, then Sagan’s dictum is certainly correct.”

He then gives us a use that, to use his term, would be “insightful”:

“In other words, claims require extraordinary evidence if they entail the falsehood of established scientific results that are themselves extensively tested and well understood. The existence of ghosts would be just such a claim, demanding revolutionary changes to the foundations of physics and biology. The evidence would need somehow to outweigh or account for all the physical and biological evidence supporting our existing expectation that ghosts are impossible.”

Which us exactly the way it’s been used here. 

Short version: your argument (such as it is) is toast.

So, are you suggesting that we use the word improbable rather than extraordinary? In which case, what on earth is improble evidence?

I think you'll find the substitution of the word extraordinary with the word improbable renders the statement bigger bollocks than it is already.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't attempt to answer because it is a diversion from the point I was making.

How can explaining the term extraordinary be a diversion from a discussion of a phrase that contains it twice?

[Maeght]

How can explaining the term extraordinary be a diversion from a discussion of a phrase that contains it twice?

Because the word extraordinary has a well known definition i.e. beyond what is ordinary or usual; highly unusual or exceptional or remarkable so no need to get into debates about that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because the word extraordinary has a well known definition i.e. beyond what is ordinary or usual; highly unusual or exceptional or remarkable so no need to get into debates about that.

Too vague to be objective.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So, are you suggesting that we use the word improbable rather than extraordinary? In which case, what on earth is improble evidence?

I think you'll find the substitution of the word extraordinary with the word improbable renders the statement bigger bollocks than it is already.

You asserted Sagan’s dictum “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” to be a fallacy, and cited two articles for support. The first is a dog’s breakfast of poor reasoning, and the second doesn’t say that the dictum is false.

Now you’re trying to slide away from your error by demanding that other people define the latter author’s terms for you.

It’s not a good look is it. 

[Gordon]

Too vague to be objective.

I'd say that Maeght's summary of what 'extraordinary' means is perfectly acceptable, precise and not in the least vague. Can't see what your problem with it is.

[Alan Burns]

Nice ad hom, Alan - not your usual style.

Every thought you think is 'materialistic' - whether you like it or not. It's just material biology you know.

Yes, I fully admit that it was unusual for me - it was a measure of my frustration in people who refuse to acknowledge their own conscious freedom in order to maintain their short sighted belief in the materialistic scenario.

You may label it biology, Gordon, but if you are entirely material then all your thoughts words and deeds will be entirely determined by unavoidable material reactions controlled by the laws of physics - not by you.

The frustration is that you would not be able to believe in anything unless God had given you the miraculous freedom to think things out and reach consciously verifiable conclusions..

[Nearly Sane]

We interrupt our normal service to bring you an announcement of Happy Quaoar for the 50,000 post on SfG. We had been worried when ot became becalmed on 49,701 posts for over a month that this hallowed day would not come.

Why Quaoar? Well in looking for a suitable marking I found that there is an object in De Kuipetlr belt with the designation 50000 Quaoar named after a Tongva creator deity, who has a son called Weywot, so it seemed appropriate.

The thread is a monument to the posters, many gone, some  list, some banned, some sadly dead who have contributed to a thread about 3 bibles long if you just take new words. If you include quotes then we are up at about 5 bibles.

Well done!


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50000_Quaoar