Quoting Jesus

[Shaker]

Firstly I have encountered Jesus.

How do you know?

Secondly I have spelled out the historical evidence against what I see as your bypassing of history

The only bypassing here is yours - specifically, the bypassing of telling us what method you're using to discount the distinct possibilities of deceit or error in documents you take to be true on their face.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did the Greeks believe their mythology was literal? With a little effort they tell me you can get to the top of Mount Olympus. Therefore on balance Icarus is a morality tale. Either that or the gods were not with him that day.

But I thought we were talking about historical truth, rather than faith. It matters not whether people believe something to be true historically or do not believe it to be true historically as to whether it is actually true.

Beyond people saying it happened there is no more or less more evidence for the implausible/impossible flight of Icharus and Daedalus (in both cases there is historical evidence that they actually existed as people) than the implausible/impossible resurrection of Jesus (for whom there is historical evidence that he existed as a person).

Why then do you believe the latter, but reject the former - that is clear double standard.

And on to St Winifred now - true or not true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know?

If it isn't him then he has a double.
Why I don't think there is any error "the method" has been outlined to you.
You and others are just relying on the virtueless confusion of what you personally believe and what you know imho.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I thought we were talking about historical truth, rather than faith. It matters not whether people believe something to be true historically or do not believe it to be true historically as to whether it is actually true.

Beyond people saying it happened there is no more or less more evidence for the implausible/impossible flight of Icharus and Daedalus (in both cases there is historical evidence that they actually existed as people) than the implausible/impossible resurrection of Jesus (for whom there is historical evidence that he existed as a person).

Why then do you believe the latter, but reject the former - that is clear double standard.

And on to St Winifred now - true or not true.

We have to look at the sense in which these things were written.

It is a long shot to pin an American style scriptural literalism onto Greek writers and people who even in those days could take an afternoons trip to Mount Olympus.

I'm afraid your approach to faith myth and history seems to be progressively lacking rigour.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm afraid your approach to faith myth and history seems to be progressively lacking rigour.

On the contrary - I am applying identical approaches and equal rigour to two examples of extraordinary claims about historical figures where the only 'evidence' is that some people claimed they happened and in both cases those claims fit the concept of myth, i.e. to ascribe god-like characteristics to an individual.

On to St Winifred.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is a long shot to pin an American style scriptural literalism onto Greek writers and people who even in those days could take an afternoons trip to Mount Olympus.

Yet you appear to wish to do so to writers and people who claim it is possible to walk on water, turn water in to wine, raise people from the dead and feed thousands of people with a small basket-full of food.

[ProfessorDavey]

Three materialists chance upon a resurrection....

Ok first lets put aside the rather strange notion that people would describe themselves as 'materialists'.

On to the meat.

First you're phraseology of itself is biased and conveys a presumption. They wouldn't 'chance upon a resurrection', they would chance upon a person where there is a claim that this individual had been dead and was now alive again.

In which case I (if it were me) would want to investigate that claim. Firstly I would want to ascertain beyond doubt that the person alive now is the same person who it is claimed had died. And that evidence would need to be independent and objective - e.g. DNA/ dental records etc.

Secondly I would require clinical evidence that the person had actually died - not just in a deep coma, near death, or in a state where resuscitation was possible. And for the claim to be sustained to be convinced beyond doubt that the person had been in that state of clinical death for a significant period of time - not just seconds, but - hey three days or longer. Again the evidence would need to be independent and objective.

Finally I'd need to confirm that the person now alive is real - not some clever illusion, hologram etc and genuinely living (that I wasn't suffering some strange hallucination) - so several, independent and objective witnesses that can be independently questioned about their interaction with this once dead, now alive person. I'd expect the claim of living to be sustained over a period of time - not a one off chance encounter that could be subject to misunderstanding/misinterpretation/mass hallucination/group think, but verified repeatedly and independently over a period of time.

Were it to be the case that all these criteria were met my interests would turn to the cause of this phenomenon. And I would want to look for anything unusual about the genetic/epigenomic/phenotypic make up of this person that might help us explain the phenomenon. Or perhaps that the person had been subject to successful cryogenic preservation etc. It might be that current science wouldn't provide an explanation at this time, in which case I would conclude that we have a currently unexplained phenomenon.

What I wouldn't do is firstly simply accept that if someone says the person was dead and is now alive that that means it is true.

Also what I wouldn't do is do a 'god of the gaps' and conclude that because we don't understand the phenomenon that it must be 'cos of god'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet you appear to wish to do so to writers and people who claim it is possible to walk on water, turn water in to wine, raise people from the dead and feed thousands of people with a small basket-full of food.

As I said in what sense is it written?
That there were what the locals called miracles certainly accompanied Jesus. Jesus himself acknowledges this.

I favour Icarus story being myth for the reasons I've outlineD Therefore I believe that to be myth.
St Winifred I am looking into but those miracles could be down to a rich and cultural Celtic imagination and tradition of mythology. The sense in which the Winifred story was written I would move is not well understood or researched.

I would like to hear from Rhiannon who to be fair to did point out that myth has a different status to history or religion.

[Shaker]

As I said in what sense is it written?
That there were what the locals called miracles certainly accompanied Jesus. Jesus himself acknowledges this.

Thank you for that statement of the obvious, but we're no further forward in getting from "It's claimed in a very old document written in credulous, pre-scientific times that X occurred" to "Here's demonstrable proof that X actually occurred as claimed."

Until you grasp this essential difference you'll continue to evade the questions put to you and anybody taking part in the discussion will be pretty much wasting their time.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would like to hear from Rhiannon who to be fair to did point out that myth has a different status to history or religion.

Myth and history are different - that is my point. You seem unable to accept this, but only when applied toward your own religion.

The link between myth and religion is more complex - we tend to use the term myth for claims of religion, when that religion isn't really active any more. But the claims are no more or less myth-like than those of current religions, but I think (for fear of offending believers) we tend to steer away from describing the fantastical claims of current religions as 'myth'.

So we are happy to talk of the Greek myths and the Norse myths, yet we don't talk of Jewish myths or Christian myths yet there are plenty of claims in the latter which are as fantastical as in the former.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you for that statement of the obvious, but we're no further forward in getting from "It's claimed in a very old document written in credulous, pre-scientific times that X occurred" to "Here's demonstrable proof that X actually occurred as claimed."

Until you grasp this essential difference you'll continue to evade the questions put to you and anybody taking part in the discussion will be pretty much wasting their time.

We are still ahead on the documentary side of things as opposed to your argument from what you can personally believe

We need historic evidence of historic conspiracy.
Of course you seem to ha've just said you don't accept evidence
Which is ancient or pre-scientific. Therefore if an actual roman report in which the body was found and people sent down appeared you would discard it.

[Shaker]

We are still ahead on the documentary side of things as opposed to your argument from what you can personally believe

We need historic evidence of historic conspiracy.

We need a means of ruling it out of the equation, and you're not coming up with the goods.

[ProfessorDavey]

We need historic evidence of historic conspiracy.

Why - all we are asking is whether there is evidence sufficient to support an extraordinary claim as being historically true.

If we reject that claim due to lack of evidence there is no onus on us to 'prove' why the untrue claim gained credence. It may be interesting to do so, but that is an entirely different topic.

And there are many reasons why incorrect notions gain credence within a society - conspiracy is of course one, but probably very uncommon. Much more likely would be that there was misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the event and/or that the reality became progressively distorted from the reality over time through multiple retelling (send reinforcements we are going to advance).

There is no conspiracy in those - no genuine attempt to deceive.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why - all we are asking is whether there is evidence sufficient to support an extraordinary claim as being historically true.

If we reject that claim due to lack of evidence there is no onus on us to 'prove' why the untrue claim gained credence. It may be interesting to do so, but that is an entirely different topic.

And there are many reasons why incorrect notions gain credence within a society - conspiracy is of course one, but probably very uncommon. Much more likely would be that there was misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the event and/or that the reality became progressively distorted from the reality over time through multiple retelling (send reinforcements we are going to advance).

There is no conspiracy in those - no genuine attempt to deceive.

Some  points in response to this point.

Is "extraordinary evidence" a form of special pleading?
Is "extraordinary evidence" about what some feel they can believe in and that involves argument from incredulity.
Isn't all history unique, the more complex a situation the more extraordinary it is?
How extraordinary is this event compared with other events in the universe? In other words is your definition of extraordinary........too anthropocentric and parochial?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is "extraordinary evidence" a form of special pleading?
Is "extraordinary evidence" about what some feel they can believe in and that involves argument from incredulity.

Where did I use the term 'extraordinary evidence'? Certainly not in the post you were replying to.

The point is that the threshold for evidence we require is linked to the extraordinariness of the claim being made.

Where the claim is run of the mill, we might accept that the claim is likely to be true based on fairly limited evidence.

However where the claim is extraordinary we should require the highest threshold of evidence to support the claim.

This is well a established concept - hence the common phrase extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if I said I can run 5km in 30 minutes, you might simply accept that on the evidence of watching me run and taking a view as to whether that is consistent with a 10km/hr running speed. You might also be fairly relaxed about this claim as I'm not claiming anything very special and it is neither here nor there whether I can run 5km in 29 minutes or 32 minutes.

If on the other hand I made the extraordinary claim that I could run 100m in 8 seconds, you would, quite reasonably expect me to provide the highest threshold of evidence - i.e. proving it with precise timing and a range of witnesses. You certainly wouldn't accept a report written decades after the claimed 100m in 8 second run written by a partial author.

[Shaker]

Where did I use the term 'extraordinary evidence'? Certainly not in the post you were replying to.

He does that.

[ProfessorDavey]

He does that.

You mean makes things up

[Shaker]

You mean makes things up

You may say that; I couldn't possibly comment.

It's certainly the case - I've had experience of it in the past few days - that he attributes comments/positions to posters that the posters have not said.

The motivation for this remains an open question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where did I use the term 'extraordinary evidence'? Certainly not in the post you were replying to.

The point is that the threshold for evidence we require is linked to the extraordinariness of the claim being made.

Where the claim is run of the mill, we might accept that the claim is likely to be true based on fairly limited evidence.

However where the claim is extraordinary we should require the highest threshold of evidence to support the claim.

This is well a established concept - hence the common phrase extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if I said I can run 5km in 30 minutes, you might simply accept that on the evidence of watching me run and taking a view as to whether that is consistent with a 10km/hr running speed. You might also be fairly relaxed about this claim as I'm not claiming anything very special and it is neither here nor there whether I can run 5km in 29 minutes or 32 minutes.

If on the other hand I made the extraordinary claim that I could run 100m in 8 seconds, you would, quite reasonably expect me to provide the highest threshold of evidence - i.e. proving it with precise timing and a range of witnesses. You certainly wouldn't accept a report written decades after the claimed 100m in 8 second run written by a partial author.

Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.

You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.

If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.

The point is about the significance of accepting the claim.

The significance of accepting a claim of 100m in 80 seconds is minimal therefore we can allow a greater 'tolerance' within our deliberation. 100m in 8 seconds would involve smashing the world record to pieces - were it to be true it would be of the most astonishing significance and therefore there can be no tolerance within our deliberation - we need the claim to be demonstrated  beyond any doubt, with the highest level of evidence required.

You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.

I never said that running 100m in 8 seconds is impossible - but currently seems very unlikely so were a claim of that nature to be made we'd require the most stringent evidence or we would, quite rightly, discount the claim. We certainly wouldn't accept someone with a vested interest in the claim simply stating that it happened 40 years ago.

If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.

Theoretically - and I mentioned the notion of cryogenics earlier - which takes a slightly different approach, namely to preserve the state at death in effectively suspended animation.

But that doesn't change the point which is that were a claim to be made of that nature we would require the very highest levels of evidence to accept that claim - and in the absence of that evidence we would, quite rightly, reject the claim.

[Shaker]

Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.

You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.

If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.

The laws of physics allow for all the molecules of air contained in a room to cram themselves into just one corner of it, but we don't see it do we?

[Owlswing]

Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.

You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.

If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.

Why don't you change your handle again?

Your contributions to this thread suggest that an approprite handle would be "A Brick Wall" so others know who they are talking to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The laws of physics allow for all the molecules of air contained in a room to cram themselves into just one corner of it, but we don't see it do we?

No it is highly improbable.
Although I would imagine the amount of disorder to be overcome to be orders of magnitude greater than that going from a dead arrangement from a live arrangement of cells. Air after all is a gas.

[Shaker]

No it is highly improbable.

A shaft of light ...

Although I would imagine the amount of disorder to be overcome to be orders of magnitude greater than that going from a dead arrangement from a live arrangement of cells. Air after all is a gas.

As are your posts, Vladdychops.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why don't you change your handle again?

The present one is a bit worthy sounding.I did it to publicise a thread like the questions one you have on the Pagan board. Of course the thread was trashed by the usual suspects. I should have known. It was like driving a 58 Cadillac through the baboon enclosure at Longleat.