More on the gospels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No-one would have need to invent them in the sense you imply. Rather reaching for explanations that satisfied what they thought they saw would have been good enough. Some caught the wind and are believed to this day (at least by some people); others have been relegated to that status of myth and fable.

So the winddidit…..did it?

I recall a scene in Airplane when all manner of representatives of diverse groups are lining up to slap an hysteric and find myself lined up with Darwinians, those who make a great play on science 'working' to give this thesis the going over it urgently deserves.

Firstly Christianity would survive because it is a good fit for many people, not only straddling cultures, but centuries and yes, civilisations. It also works. I would add that it is comprehensive providing not only a successful theology but also anthropology.

See how well an argument for it merely 'catching the wind' fares against Darwinianism, functionality and an argument for Christianity having a satisfying and successful psychology, anthropology, theology and philosophy into which previous insights can be folded.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Survivorship bias:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Survivorship bias:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

OK I'm in. The citation starts thus:
''Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process''

Concentrating: In what form does this concentration take? Are failures excluded? Are old religions never focussed on in anyway? Are you recommending by implication that it is illogical for Doctor' to overlook shamanic medicine men in favour of modern therapies?

Selection process: Could that not be Darwinian or other valid process? How does that fit in with logical error. In what way do fossils not concentrated on or dinosaurs not loved?


 ''and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways.''

What false conclusions?

[Spud]

Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try 

[BeRational]

Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try 

You mean just like your God.

[Roses]

Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try 

Just like the god featured in the Bible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Bhs,
"miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra ..."
These are imaginary gods who've never been seen or heard. Have another try   

Let’s see whether you can work out for yourself where you’ve gone wrong here. I’ll give you some clues though:

First, you argue that the miracle stories in a book mean that your god must be real.

In reply I explain that there are lots of miracle stories from lots of faith beliefs that are no less well-evidenced than your own.

You then respond by telling me that the those gods are just made up, whereas yours… 

OK, enough clues I think. Let me know when you see the problem here.

[Spud]

Just like the god featured in the Bible.

We're looking for a human who is claimed to have performed miracles. The circumstances must be recorded in detail and and as much of these as possible verified by current research, eg locations (like small villages) or climate, culture, geography.They must date to no later than a few decades of the miracles taking place.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

We're looking for a human who is claimed to have performed miracles.

There are plenty to choose from.

The circumstances must be recorded in detail and and as much of these as possible verified by current research, eg locations (like small villages) or climate, culture, geography.They must date to no later than a few decades of the miracles taking place.

Quite a few of those too, though of course however accurate the location etc are recorded that tells you nothing whatever about whether or not actual miracles took place there. And that’s your problem still.

Incidentally the culture bit will backfire on you when you realise that the culture entailed people readily believing miracle stories of all sorts and from multiple sources because that’s all they had at the time in place of more robust explanations for the phenomena they observed.

[Roses]

We're looking for a human who is claimed to have performed miracles. The circumstances must be recorded in detail and and as much of these as possible verified by current research, eg locations (like small villages) or climate, culture, geography.They must date to no later than a few decades of the miracles taking place.

That scam merchant Benny Hinn claims to have performed miracles, just as have many others of his ilk!

[Spud]

Spud,

There are plenty to choose from.

So I looked up miracles of Buddha and found that no records exist until about 300 years after he supposedly did. Do you have anything that beats this?

Quite a few of those too, though of course however accurate the location etc are recorded that tells you nothing whatever about whether or not actual miracles took place there. And that’s your problem still.

Getting details about circumatances right suggests that the authors wouldn't make mistakes when it comes to details of miracles.
That leaves us with deliberate fabrication and legend. Well, the gospels are too early to be legends. Later pseudo-gospels (which I haven't studied) apparently have much less circumstantial detail, such as names of places and people. This is characteristic of legend. As for fabrication: taken on its own, carefully fabricated gospels containing made-up miracles would be simple to diagnose, as at least one of the evangelists or diaciples would be likely to admit he had made it up, if under pressure. Combine the two
 however (much detail plus not admitting to making them up) and you have a much stronger case for genuine miracles.

Incidentally the culture bit will backfire on you when you realise that the culture entailed people readily believing miracle stories of all sorts and from multiple sources because that’s all they had at the time in place of more robust explanations for the phenomena they observed.

Go back and read the description of the miracles and tell me they are magic tricks!

[BeRational]

So I looked up miracles of Buddha and found that no records exist until about 300 years after he supposedly did. Do you have anything that beats this?Getting details about circumatances right suggests that the authors wouldn't make mistakes when it comes to details of miracles.
That leaves us with deliberate fabrication and legend. Well, the gospels are too early to be legends. Later pseudo-gospels (which I haven't studied) apparently have much less circumstantial detail, such as names of places and people. This is characteristic of legend. As for fabrication: taken on its own, carefully fabricated gospels containing made-up miracles would be simple to diagnose, as at least one of the evangelists or diaciples would be likely to admit he had made it up, if under pressure. Combine the two
 however (much detail plus not admitting to making them up) and you have a much stronger case for genuine miracles.
Go back and read the description of the miracles and tell me they are magic tricks!

Satya said baba reportedly was reincarnated and performed various miracles.
Eye witnesses of the miracles are alive today that you could speak to.
I am sure they are convinced they were not magic tricks.

[Spud]

BR, his miracles have apparently been shown to be tricks.

[Sebastian Toe]

BR, his miracles have apparently been shown to be tricks.

...and if it could be shown that Jesus miracles could be replicated as tricks?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

So I looked up miracles of Buddha and found that no records exist until about 300 years after he supposedly did. Do you have anything that beats this?

So you’re proposing that 30-odd years after the event must be spot on, whereas 300 years won’t be? Seriously? Seems a bit odd don’t you think given that a group of a just a few people playing a game of Chinese whispers get it wrong after just a few minutes of re-telling?

Getting details about circumatances right suggests that the authors wouldn't make mistakes when it comes to details of miracles.

Don’t be daft. “At 2.30pm on the corner of Pilgrim Way and Supplicant Street Fred saw a miracle” tells you nothing at all about whether Fred saw an actual miracle rather than just thought he did even though the time and address may be spot on.   
 

That leaves us with deliberate fabrication and legend.

And honest mistake remember?

Well, the gospels are too early to be legends. Later pseudo-gospels (which I haven't studied) apparently have much less circumstantial detail, such as names of places and people. This is characteristic of legend. As for fabrication: taken on its own, carefully fabricated gospels containing made-up miracles would be simple to diagnose, as at least one of the evangelists or diaciples would be likely to admit he had made it up, if under pressure. Combine the two
 however (much detail plus not admitting to making them up) and you have a much stronger case for genuine miracles.

No you don’t. You have no case at all in fact, at least that is unless you’ve found a way to validate what the alleged witnesses thought they saw by way of an explanation.   

Go back and read the description of the miracles and tell me they are magic tricks!

Fairly straightforwardly I’d have thought, but that’s not my job. You’re the one who claims that deliberate trickery (and all the other possible non-miraculous explanations) have been “eliminated”, so it’s your job to demonstrate that. It’s called the burden of proof. All I have to do though is to suggest the other ways the accounts could have come about – a trivially easy thing to do. 

[BeRational]

BR, his miracles have apparently been shown to be tricks.

Not to his followers.

Perhaps if Jesus tried his tricks today we are more aware of them and he would be found out as well?

[Roses]

Not to his followers.

Perhaps if Jesus tried his tricks today we are more aware of them and he would be found out as well?

That would probably be the case.

[jeremyp]

Not to his followers.

Perhaps if Jesus tried his tricks today we are more aware of them and he would be found out as well?

No.

Because his followers want him to have magic powers, they will ignore the evidence. They will insist that lesser conjurers could do the trick, but the way Jesus does it is special and can't be replicated.

[BeRational]

No.

Because his followers want him to have magic powers, they will ignore the evidence. They will insist that lesser conjurers could do the trick, but the way Jesus does it is special and can't be replicated.

I agree, and that is why I think the followers is Sathya sai baba do not think he was using trickery.

[Spud]

Spud,

So you’re proposing that 30-odd years after the event must be spot on, whereas 300 years won’t be? Seriously? Seems a bit odd don’t you think given that a group of a just a few people playing a game of Chinese whispers get it wrong after just a few minutes of re-telling?

The difference is that 30 years (if that much) is low enough that the claims could be refuted by people who were there.
I'm not sure the apostles whispered their message to people?

Don’t be daft. “At 2.30pm on the corner of Pilgrim Way and Supplicant Street Fred saw a miracle” tells you nothing at all about whether Fred saw an actual miracle rather than just thought he did even though the time and address may be spot on.

It does tell us that the witness would be able to describe what he saw accurately, though. Of course that on its own doesn't eliminate the possibility of dishonesty or illusion. If other people witnessed it, and if those people kept to their story under duress and while separated from other witnesses, the case is strengthened. I don't claim that it completely proves miracles took place.
 

And honest mistake remember?

True that is possible, but there are other factors to take into consideration, as above. We find that rather than people coming forward to refute that people had been healed in an instant, they argued about the source of Jesus' power. Plus there are other pieces of information, such as the empty tomb, that strengthen the disciples' claims.

No you don’t. You have no case at all in fact, at least that is unless you’ve found a way to validate what the alleged witnesses thought they saw by way of an explanation.   

Fairly straightforwardly I’d have thought, but that’s not my job. You’re the one who claims that deliberate trickery (and all the other possible non-miraculous explanations) have been “eliminated”, so it’s your job to demonstrate that. It’s called the burden of proof. All I have to do though is to suggest the other ways the accounts could have come about – a trivially easy thing to do.

[Roses]

The difference is that 30 years (if that much) is low enough that the claims could be refuted by people who were there.
I'm not sure the apostles whispered their message to people?
It does tell us that the witness would be able to describe what he saw accurately, though. Of course that on its own doesn't eliminate the possibility of dishonesty or illusion. If other people witnessed it, and if those people kept to their story under duress and while separated from other witnesses, the case is strengthened. I don't claim that it completely proves miracles took place.
 True that is possible, but there are other factors to take into consideration, as above. We find that rather than people coming forward to refute that people had been healed in an instant, they argued about the source of Jesus' power. Plus there are other pieces of information, such as the empty tomb, that strengthen the disciples' claims.

Eye witness testimonies about less than credible events, are not reliable.

[Spud]

Eye witness testimonies about less than credible events, are not reliable.

That doesn't really make sense. People can give reliable eyewitness testimonies, or in the days before CCTV no-one would ever have been convicted of anything. What you mean is that sub-credible events cannot happen, and so anyone claiming to witness one must be unreliable. But if a group of witnesses is reliable in all other details, they must be "reliable", unless you make the assumption that all events always obey the laws of nature.

[BeRational]

That doesn't really make sense. People can give reliable eyewitness testimonies, or in the days before CCTV no-one would ever have been convicted of anything. What you mean is that sub-credible events cannot happen, and so anyone claiming to witness one must be unreliable. But if a group of witnesses is reliable in all other details, they must be "reliable", unless you make the assumption that all events always obey the laws of nature.

Eye witness evidence is the worst evidence you can have .

Do you believe the eye witness testimonies for Sathya sai baba?

If not why not as you could speak to these eye witnesses today.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

That doesn't really make sense. People can give reliable eyewitness testimonies, or in the days before CCTV no-one would ever have been convicted of anything. What you mean is that sub-credible events cannot happen, and so anyone claiming to witness one must be unreliable. But if a group of witnesses is reliable in all other details, they must be "reliable", unless you make the assumption that all events always obey the laws of nature.

Like a reliable eyewitness testimony about someone on stage being sawn in half and joined together again you mean?

[Spud]

Spud,

Like a reliable eyewitness testimony about someone on stage being sawn in half and joined together again you mean?

No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.