Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Spud]

So, Spud, are you saying here that the gap between the alleged events of the death of Jesus and the NT reports of these in the NT is being deliberately exaggerated so as to weaken the relevance of presumed eye-witnesses?

Possibly, yes.

Do tell, since as far as I can see even your Christian scholars (for want of a better term) acknowledge there is a gap of several years to decades - perhaps you have the advantage of them.

You'll need to clarify this since I can't see there is a risk at all, never mind one that is comparable with the risks of people making mistakes or telling lies (which is known human behaviour).

What I meant by risk was, possibility. How have you eliminated the possibility that there were many people who could say, "the gospels are true, I was there".

[Gordon]

What I meant by risk was, possibility. How have you eliminated the possibility that there were many people who could say, "the gospels are true, I was there".

I don't need to - it is your claim and not mine: nice try at shifting the burden of proof though.

So, the details are what exactly, and how do you know the truth of whatever these details are?

[Spud]

I don't need to

If a newspaper was informing the public that you must now use the outside lane only to overtake, you would need to form a judgment as to the truth of the report. Likewise if the NT claims that Jesus can save us from our sin then we need to know if it's true. So it becomes necessary to prove that it is not true.

- it is your claim and not mine

It's the New Testament's claim.

[floo]

If a newspaper was informing the public that you must now use the outside lane only to overtake, you would need to form a judgment as to the truth of the report. Likewise if the NT claims that Jesus can save us from our sin then we need to know if it's true. So it becomes necessary to prove that it is not true.

It's the New Testament's claim.

You are not comparing like with like! It is easy enough to verify, if need be, that you have to use the outside lane, but totally impossible to verify the claims made in the NT referring to Jesus!

[Gordon]

If a newspaper was informing the public that you must now use the outside lane only to overtake, you would need to form a judgment as to the truth of the report.

Now you are being silly - this isn't a witness report: it is legislation and if I want to I can check the details with the relevant authorities. I can also take into account that newspapers are unlikely to report legislation changes using bias, but even then I can check the details with the source - and, guess what, no supernatural elements are involved either.

Likewise if the NT claims that Jesus can save us from our sin then we need to know if it's true. So it becomes necessary to prove that it is not true

So now you are deploying the negative proof fallacy and are being even sillier than before: this is not 'likewise' at all, as in being comparable to traffic legislation, and without a method to first of all determine what 'sin' is (such as it characteristics and how it is measured) and then to demonstrate how the death of this Jewish preacher some two millennia ago has any detectable relevance to, say, any 'sins' of mine then as it stands these NT claims are just so much white noise.

It's the New Testament's claim.

Then those supporting it these days have their work ahead of them to turn it into something that requires serious consideration.

[Spud]

Now you are being silly - this isn't a witness report: it is legislation and if I want to I can check the details with the relevant authorities. I can also take into account that newspapers are unlikely to report legislation changes using bias, but even then I can check the details with the source - and, guess what, no supernatural elements are involved either.

So now you are deploying the negative proof fallacy and are being even sillier than before: this is not 'likewise' at all, as in being comparable to traffic legislation, and without a method to first of all determine what 'sin' is (such as it characteristics and how it is measured) and then to demonstrate how the death of this Jewish preacher some two millennia ago has any detectable relevance to, say, any 'sins' of mine then as it stands these NT claims are just so much white noise.

Then those supporting it these days have their work ahead of them to turn it into something that requires serious consideration.

I am not deploying the negative proof fallacy if I say that:
The existence of the worldwide church today is evidence that there were witnesses who could verify the New Testament. If there had not been, then its constituent books would have been discredited when they were published

[Spud]

I am not deploying the negative proof fallacy if I say that:
The existence of the worldwide church today is evidence that there were witnesses who could verify the New Testament. If there had not been, then its constituent books would have been discredited when they were published

Thinking in particular of statements such as in Acts 2:22 or in Mark 5 where many people are said to have witnessed Jesus' miracles.

[jeremyp]

I am not deploying the negative proof fallacy if I say that:
The existence of the worldwide church today is evidence that there were witnesses who could verify the New Testament. If there had not been, then its constituent books would have been discredited when they were published

What do you mean by "published"? These are hand written documents. How long do you think it would have been before the "authorities" would have seen copies?

[Gordon]

I am not deploying the negative proof fallacy if I say that:
The existence of the worldwide church today is evidence that there were witnesses who could verify the New Testament. If there had not been, then its constituent books would have been discredited when they were published

Not if you say that, since in this post you're using a different fallacy: your use of the negative proof fallacy occurred earlier when you said this

If a newspaper was informing the public that you must now use the outside lane only to overtake, you would need to form a judgment as to the truth of the report. Likewise if the NT claims that Jesus can save us from our sin then we need to know if it's true. So it becomes necessary to prove that it is not true.

That the Christian church has survived into modern times isn't evidence that the claims of the NT have been verified, and in saying so you've now switched to a fallacious argument from authority, and without a method to established supernatural agency regarding the claims of divinity in the NT they don't have to be discredited because you've yet to establish that there are credible in the first place.   

[Spud]

That the Christian church has survived into modern times isn't evidence that the claims of the NT have been verified, and in saying so you've now switched to a fallacious argument from authority,

How is it a fallacious argument from authority?

and without a method to established supernatural agency regarding the claims of divinity in the NT they don't have to be discredited because you've yet to establish that there are credible in the first place.

So if I tell my friend that I saw a paralyzed man get up and walk, and ten other people confirm that they saw it too, then it is not established as credible? Given that something supernatural cannot be understood by natural creatures such as us your demand for a method to establish it is, I would say, a red herring.

[Shaker]

So if I tell my friend that I saw a paralyzed man get up and walk, and ten other people confirm that they saw it too, then it is not established as credible? Given that something supernatural cannot be understood by natural creatures such as us your demand for a method to establish it is, I would say, a red herring.

No, it isn't a red herring. He's asking you what has been asked of others many times and every time without an answer: what methodology is there for examining, evaluating and testing what you think of or consider to be supernatural claims? If in your opinion there is one, let's see it. If you can't, then you haven't a leg to stand on, epistemologically speaking. You're simply assuming "supernatural" (which in essence means "I don't know, so it must be magic") out of an aversion to saying "I don't know" but with the desire to leave your worldview intact, I guess.

[Gordon]

How is it a fallacious argument from authority?

Because you are citing the survival of institutions of organised Christianity as grounds to believe Christian claims.
 

So if I tell my friend that I saw a paralyzed man get up and walk, and ten other people confirm that they saw it too, then it is not established as credible?

Nope - there are more prosaic everyday explanations to be considered first: you could be wrong, as could the ten other people, and that you would advance a miracle explanation at all might raise the risk of bias and credulity, and there is then the possibility that you were being misled in some way. So there are various aspects involving people and these are always more likely that anything supernatural since we know that making mistakes, being misled and misleading others are known human traits.

Given that something supernatural cannot be understood by natural creatures such as us your demand for a method to establish it is, I would say, a red herring.

Nope - if you are claiming the supernatural then you need a method suited to it else, as we have seen you do, you risk falling head-first into any number of fallacies: such as arguments from authority and personal incredulity, confirmation bias, special pleading and the negative proof fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you are citing the survival of institutions of organised Christianity as grounds to believe Christian claims.
 
Nope - there are more prosaic everyday explanations to be considered first: you could be wrong, as could the ten other people, and that you would advance a miracle explanation at all might raise the risk of bias and credulity, and there is then the possibility that you were being misled in some way. So there are various aspects involving people and these are always more likely that anything supernatural since we know that making mistakes, being misled and misleading others are known human traits.

Nope - if you are claiming the supernatural then you need a method suited to it else, as we have seen you do, you risk falling head-first into any number of fallacies: such as arguments from authority and personal incredulity, confirmation bias, special pleading and the negative proof fallacy.

One can always argue philosophically Gordon, if you are dodging that you are merely retreating into scientism and positivism which are , er. philosophical arguments.

[Red Giant]

How is it a fallacious argument from authority?
So if I tell my friend that I saw a paralyzed man get up and walk, and ten other people confirm that they saw it too, then it is not established as credible?

How would they know they were talking about the same incident?  There were no published photos of Jesus and people didn't keep diaries.

Anybody who'd ever seen any itinerant preacher / healer / magician would easily persuade themselves that it must have been Jesus.  Even if they'd never heard of him at the time because he hadn't been invented yet.

[floo]

How is it a fallacious argument from authority?
So if I tell my friend that I saw a paralyzed man get up and walk, and ten other people confirm that they saw it too, then it is not established as credible? Given that something supernatural cannot be understood by natural creatures such as us your demand for a method to establish it is, I would say, a red herring.

If something isn't remotely credible like the 'miracles' attributed to Jesus, people who claimed to have 'witnessed' them are lying! 'Miracles' apparently including amputated limbs growing back have been claimed by that charlatan Benny Hinn! No evidence to substantiate those claims, or any other less than credible 'miracles' attributed to anyone else have been put forward!

[Spud]

No, it isn't a red herring. He's asking you what has been asked of others many times and every time without an answer: what methodology is there for examining, evaluating and testing what you think of or consider to be supernatural claims? If in your opinion there is one, let's see it. If you can't, then you haven't a leg to stand on, epistemologically speaking. You're simply assuming "supernatural" (which in essence means "I don't know, so it must be magic") out of an aversion to saying "I don't know" but with the desire to leave your worldview intact, I guess.

The only methodology for examining, testing and evaluating what you consider to be supernatural claims is, word of mouth. If you assumed that witnessing a miracle would produce certain changes in a person, then you could observe those changes and be certain that the miracle occurred.  For instance, people observed changes in Saul/Paul and were convinced by his claim that Christ had appeared to him. Luke documented the changes in his letter to Theophilus. Since the re ipients of the message could verify the changes in the giver, they would have proof that the original miracle had occurred.

[Gordon]

The only methodology for examining, testing and evaluating what you consider to be supernatural claims is, word of mouth. If you assumed that witnessing a miracle would produce certain changes in a person, then you could observe those changes and be certain that the miracle occurred.  For instance, people observed changes in Saul/Paul and were convinced by his claim that Christ had appeared to him. Luke documented the changes in his letter to Theophilus. Since the re ipients of the message could verify the changes in the giver, they would have proof that the original miracle had occurred.

You're kidding, Spud, tell me you're kidding (since its too soon for 1st April).

[Spud]

Because you are citing the survival of institutions of organised Christianity as grounds to believe Christian claims.
 
Nope - there are more prosaic everyday explanations to be considered first: you could be wrong, as could the ten other people, and that you would advance a miracle explanation at all might raise the risk of bias and credulity, and there is then the possibility that you were being misled in some way. So there are various aspects involving people and these are always more likely that anything supernatural since we know that making mistakes, being misled and misleading others are known human traits.

It's comparable to a report in the local paper that Joe bloggs the cashier at Lloyd's bank was no longer blind in one eye, for example. Most of those healed by Jesus were known to lots of other people, so any false or mistaken report would be refuted.

[Shaker]

The only methodology for examining, testing and evaluating what you consider to be supernatural claims is, word of mouth.

Given what we know about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the passage of a message from person to person to person, are you absolutely sure you really want to go down this route?

If you assumed that witnessing a miracle would produce certain changes in a person, then you could observe those changes and be certain that the miracle occurred.

No, you could not. You can have a high degree of confidence that the subject believed that a miracle had occurred, not that a miracle had actually occurred. Belief in X and the actuality of X are not, never have been, never will be the same thing. Psychological phenomena such as the placebo effect are evidence enough that the belief in a certain thing is sufficient unto itself to explain why mere belief is enough to effect measurable and demonstrable changes in a person and not that the thing believed is true.

For instance, people observed changes in Saul/Paul and were convinced by his claim that Christ had appeared to him. Luke documented the changes in his letter to Theophilus. Since the re ipients of the message could verify the changes in the giver, they would have proof that the original miracle had occurred.

Oh dear 

[Spud]

You're kidding, Spud, tell me you're kidding (since its too soon for 1st April).

No, I am not kidding, G. And do you know that the Flood was global, too?

[Gordon]

It's comparable to a report in the local paper that Joe bloggs the cashier at Lloyd's bank was no longer blind in one eye, for example. Most of those healed by Jesus were known to lots of other people, so any false or mistaken report would be refuted.

Don't believe everything you read, Spud, especially when remarkable claims are made, and even more especially when the provenance is uncertain and where there are the risks of mistakes, lies and bias - since you'd run the risk of being thought of as bring highly credulous.

[Shaker]

Don't believe everything you read, Spud, especially when remarkable claims are made, and even more especially when the provenance is uncertain and where there are the risks of mistakes, lies and bias - since you'd run the risk of being thought of as bring highly credulous.

Being thought of as highly credulous does not seem to be an area of concern for theists generally and especially any on this forum 

[Gordon]

No, I am not kidding, G. And do you know that the Flood was global, too?

You are kidding, else you are lost to reason.

[Leonard James]

No, I am not kidding, G. And do you know that the Flood was global, too?

A flood capable of covering the whole of the globe is a scientific impossibility.