Unconditional love

[BeRational]

All you god would have to do to not look like a maniac, is to NOT punish people that did not believe in him.

Who says he is punishing them?  It seems to me that it is those who read the Bible in extremely non-literalistic ways (and yes, there are a handful of 'Christians' who do this - eg Fred Phelps; followers of the Prosperity Gospel) who beieve that God punishes people when he allows them to face the consequences of their own choices.

Then peoples choice need no be compromised, and at the moment of death she could jump out and say "Fooled ya, grab a drink of your choice and come on in, we are just having a welcoming party for you".

So, you want to be able to live your earthly life without a belief in God, but then to be able to live as if you had believed in God for the rest of eternity?  That smacks of hypocrisy.

It is not hypocrisy, it just shows that your god is NOT all loving.

I do not believe for any other reason than the fact that I find that the claimants for a god, have not met their burden of proof. I remain in the DEFAULT position of not believing.

Your god if it exists would understand that rational people cannot accept irrational claims for a god.

[Outrider]

So, you want to be able to live your earthly life without a belief in God, but then to be able to live as if you had believed in God for the rest of eternity?  That smacks of hypocrisy.

No, I live my earthly - only, it seems - life on the tenet that if you show me sufficient evidence to support your claim I'll accept it.

If I were to meet god in an afterlife I'd previously not seen evidence for I'd; a) be stunned, b) revise my opinion based on the new evidence.

That's not hypocrisy, that's entirely consistent. I'm not sure I'd have the wherewithal to go all out Stephen Fry* during the meeting, but that might come at some point of course.

O.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

[Hope]

So far as we can tell no-one was making the allegation at the time. Certainly none of the authorities at the time recorded it as such. It's only decades later that we have any evidence of anyone making the claims.

The events of Acts 1 and 2 took place 'decades later'?  Do you have any evidence for this claim?

[Gordon]

So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?

No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.

The possibility of mistake or lies when it comes to anecdotal reports is always a valid suspicion, and especially so where there are risks of biased reporting and propaganda by supporters or detractors of whatever the issue is.The burden of proof is on those supporting the claim to explain how they have addressed these risks

The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point.

NS is quite correct though, no matter how you try to wriggle out of accepting this.

This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it.  In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake.  Did they manage to do so?  Has anyone ever managed to do so?

As has been noted before - the resurrection is a post-hoc addition so that the authorities 'on the day', and in the days and weeks thereafter, were probably unaware of any need to 'do' anything beyond conducting a routine execution.

[Outrider]

So far as we can tell no-one was making the allegation at the time. Certainly none of the authorities at the time recorded it as such. It's only decades later that we have any evidence of anyone making the claims.

The events of Acts 1 and 2 took place 'decades later'?  Do you have any evidence for this claim?

No, the documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place, at best, decades later. They are only a weak claim that the events of Acts 1 and 2 took place at all.

O.

[Hope]

No, the documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place, at best, decades later. They are only a weak claim that the events of Acts 1 and 2 took place at all.

Wrong, the written documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place as early as 44AD, according to the generally accepted dating of Galations (between 44 and 55AD).  However, oral documentation had started long before that with events recorded in Acts occurring as little as weeks after the events.  Peter's sermon - recorded in Acts 2 - is a good example.

If you insist on only allowing written documentation you will need to disallow most such documentation as the vast majority of historical documentation is 'after the event', only recording the oral documentation of the time.

[Nearly Sane]

So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?

No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.  The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point.  This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it.  In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake.  Did they manage to do so?  Has anyone ever managed to do so?

So that would be a no, then. Yet again you cite evidence but it isn't what is used in the study of history, which means that until you provide a methodlogy, the use of the term evidence is entirely specious.

[Outrider]

Wrong, the written documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place as early as 44AD, according to the generally accepted dating of Galations (between 44 and 55AD).  However, oral documentation had started long before that with events recorded in Acts occurring as little as weeks after the events.  Peter's sermon - recorded in Acts 2 - is a good example.

Earliest estimates of any of the works are Galatians or Thessalonians, typically presumed to be 60 onwards, but with some claims as early as 51 (Thess.) or 49 (Gal). First external verification is of 10 of the works listed in a letter dated to 95.

Given the alleged death of Christ in around 33/34, that's still a decade and a half later.

If you insist on only allowing written documentation you will need to disallow most such documentation as the vast majority of historical documentation is 'after the event', only recording the oral documentation of the time.

Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

As has been noted before - the resurrection is a post-hoc addition so that the authorities 'on the day', and in the days and weeks thereafter, were probably unaware of any need to 'do' anything beyond conducting a routine execution.

Just to add to this, the non Biblical sources used for the existence of JC such As Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius and Josephus do not give any indication of any thoughts on this or even a high level understanding of the claim.

[Nearly Sane]

Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.

O.

And none are considered reliable in terms of superbnatural claims because of history being methodologically naturalistic

[Outrider]

Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.

O.

And none are considered reliable in terms of superbnatural claims because of history being methodologically naturalistic

Arguably - multiple historic accounts of, say, the parting of the Red Sea would give credence to the account.

Then you'd need to find an explanation, and it's at that point where someone wanting to posit a supernatural cause would have to justify it. The events themselves might be presumed naturalistic, but their occurence doesn't require an explanation in itself, just sufficient evidence to think that they genuinely happened.

That said, the implication of such a freakishly inconceivable event does put an unusual burden of evidence on the claimant.

O.

[Andy]

Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.

O.

And none are considered reliable in terms of superbnatural claims because of history being methodologically naturalistic

Arguably - multiple historic accounts of, say, the parting of the Red Sea would give credence to the account.

Then you'd need to find an explanation, and it's at that point where someone wanting to posit a supernatural cause would have to justify it. The events themselves might be presumed naturalistic, but their occurence doesn't require an explanation in itself, just sufficient evidence to think that they genuinely happened.

That said, the implication of such a freakishly inconceivable event does put an unusual burden of evidence on the claimant.

O.

It doesn't even need to be a freakishly inconceivable event either. It can be as mundane as you want. Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat. Under a naturalistic approach, they're just come day, go day events, but under a supernaturalistic outlook how do you even begin to recognise events like these as mundane? Looking through supernatural specs makes a nonsense of a naturalistic outlook.

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't even need to be a freakishly inconceivable event either. It can be as mundane as you want. Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat. Under a naturalistic approach, they're just come day, go day events, but under a supernaturalistic outlook how do you even begin to recognise events like these as mundane? Looking through supernatural specs makes a nonsense of a naturalistic outlook.

And dissolves any known method

[Sebastian Toe]

 Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat.

I am reading this in not a good way! 

[BeRational]

 Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat.

I am reading this in not a good way! 

I would not like to be using any of this in my defence in a court!

The supernatural made me do it your honour.

[Andy]

 Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat.

I am reading this in not a good way! 

  Perhaps I should've ordered it the other way around.

[Rhiannon]

Some historical accounts exist around this woman.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Winifred

An apparently real person, we know her lineage, where she lived, and the fact she was decapitated before her uncle restored her head and she came back to life. It's well documented.

[Shaker]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

[Outrider]

Some historical accounts exist around this woman.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Winifred

An apparently real person, we know her lineage, where she lived, and the fact she was decapitated before her uncle restored her head and she came back to life. It's well documented.

First impressions - a lady who quite likely was attacked and had her neck cut was left with a scar. Over time the story was exaggerated more and more.

Seems far more likely an explanation than the reattachment of a severed appendage in the absence of any complex surgery, let alone a head.

O.

[Rhiannon]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

I don't mean to be unkind. I just really don't see why one set of documented myths around a vaguely historical person are taken as fact when around another they are dismissed as legend.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.

Skepticism is the default position - it doesn't need to be justified. You make the claim, and until you've offered sufficient evidence to support it it remains unproven.

But that's not what's going on is it science scepticism is being on these boards mistaken for science, philosophical naturalism, being right, excused the exercise of proper historical research.

[Outrider]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

I don't mean to be unkind. I just really don't see why one set of documented myths around a vaguely historical person are taken as fact when around another they are dismissed as legend.

It's not so much that they're completely one or the other.

It seems likely that St Winifred is based on a real person. It seems likely that the Christian idea of Jesus is based on a real person.

It seems likely that St Winifred lived in the time specified and was a nun for a reasonable period. It seems likely that she suffered some sort of neck injury. The legendary part is the bit about being decapitated and having the head reattached, probably an exaggeration.

It's entirely possible that Jesus was crucified - it wasn't uncommon at the time, unfortunately - but the idea that he was resurrected is one of the legendary bits. The problem with the Jesus myth is that so many legends have been crammed into the narrative with so little corroboration that it all becomes highly suspect.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

[Nearly Sane]

But that's not what's going on is it science scepticism is being on these boards mistaken for science, philosophical naturalism, being right, excused the exercise of proper historical research.

Those might be the right words but you've gone all Eric Morecombe on them.

[Outrider]

But that's not what's going on is it science scepticism is being on these boards mistaken for science, philosophical naturalism, being right, excused the exercise of proper historical research.

I'd say that skepticism - scientific or otherwise - is being conflated as bias sometimes. Hope's repeated point that, ultimately, believers don't reason their way to belief, it's a matter of faith is worth bearing in mind.

Reason does not have a path to 'therefore god'.

The fetishisation of 'Philosophical Naturalism' is purely your own doing, if you stopped throwing out around like some sort of faith-based panacea against logic things would probably proceed better.

Skepticism is the default position, the onus is on the claimant to prove their claim to a satisfactory degree. If you want people to accept extraordinary claims you either need: a lot more naturalistic evidence than you currently have offered; a lot better naturalistic evidence than you currently have offered; a different methodology.

O.