Page 33 of 77 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 768

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #321
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,991
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,047
    Rep Power
    22
    Good to see support and encouragement for each other.

    ( I should be doing more of it myself )

  2. Top | #322
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,991
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,047
    Rep Power
    22
    Sorry for delay but genuinly cheers for the reminder.

    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Learner, just a polite reminder that there is a question pending related to one of your posts. You made certain claims regarding the resurrection story, and I am trying to figure out what you were trying to say.
    How do you know that a new body was provided, and that the old body wasn't reanimated? Where did this new body come from? Was it made in some kind of a celestial factory, or did a human have to give birth to a soulless baby that grew into a soulless full size body that was stored somewhere, and later used as a container for Jesus's soul?
    I simpy thought, merely in opinion: when the body dies, cells and all, then anything "living" appearing after death, is therefore "new" or I could say "re-newed". I was differentiating from how you mention reanimation in regards to zombies,... describing the "walking dead" by this particular reanimation concept. The creatures were "stil" dead e.g. non living flesh, body parts dropping off, still rotting etc..etc.

    And more importantly, do you agree that stories involving reanimated, flying corpses should be treated with skepticism, as remez did?
    Of course, I agree with both of your skepticisms in view of .. flying "corpses" or flying "dead" bodies.

    Where did Jesus's soul go after it left the old body and before it could be inserted into the new body? What is a soul and how does it move around between bodies? Your statements lead to even more questions that need to be answered.
    Jesus goes down to Hades according to several passages for a time before returning to HIS body. I don't know the spiritual mechanics so to speak. New bodies is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:

    For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies.


    Interstingly but valid point brought up in Keiths post which he highlighted Jesus having the scars of the wounds inflicted on Him before His physical death. I could accept the reanimation in terms, as a substitute for "regeneration" of bodies i.e. living as new, (which may sound convenient here but it IS a point like your questions that invites the exploration in my case) .

  3. Top | #323
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,250
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    New bodies is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5
    And in 1 Corinthians, but the problem is, both are (allegedly) written by Paul. Those are Paul's guesses about what happens. But he has no authority to say anything at all definitively. His only claim to any kind of authority is that he allegedly had a "vision." Aka, "hallucination," if, in fact, it ever happened and he wasn't simply lying about it and/or it wasn't the evidently common result of some form of epilepsy or other brain disorder, that we know today to cause all manner of religiously themed hallucinations in the similarly afflicted.

    But with Paul we have additional evidence that he was not speaking with any kind of authority in the facts that, (1), he was never trusted by any of the actual disciples and was in fact relegated to only tending to the far less important gentile and "hellenized" Jews while the OG disciples ministered to the real Jews (that we curiously know almost nothing about, no less); (2) not even his own congregates believed his opinions (hence the letters in the first place and their repeated insistence that followers had to believe his version or else there was no religion and no salvation and no prize off the top shelf).

    Far from being an authority, Paul was a pariah and his opinions on Jesus' death not believed or adhered to by the fringe followers most likely to believe such pagan nonsense to begin with.

    Regardless, there is still the problem with Thomas insisting that he would not believe it was actually Jesus unless and until he could physically stick his fingers into the actual wounds.

    But why would that be the requirement? Think about it for two seconds. A friend of yours dies in, say, a car accident. You go to the funeral. You see him buried. You walk away and start to mourn. A few days later, your buddies come to you and say, "Dude! Bob resurrected from the dead! Come see him!"

    Aside from being astounded, why would your first thought be: I won't believe it's Bob unless I can stick my hands in his wounds! . Are your friends capable of somehow finding a body double for Bob and then pretending that he resurrected to play some sort of elaborate and horrific practical joke on you or something? Is it a common occurrence for you to be tricked by people you thought were dead only to find out, nope! All a ruse!

    And why in the world wouldn't just seeing Bob alive and talking to you be more than sufficient for you to believe he's no longer dead? Why would you need to physically stick your hands into his wounds in order to believe it really was Bob?

    As I pointed out, the only reason to make up this sequence and add it into this latter account is because--as with Paul's letters evidencing disbelief in Corinthia--clearly the followers some forty-fifty years after Paul's letters still did not buy the notion of Jesus resurrecting. So embellishments were evidently called for, either by the author (whoever he was) or by the then "church elders" (whoever they were).

    Iow, Doubting Thomas was intended as apologetics; to cover up a hole in the mythology that clearly had persisted in spite of Paul's earlier attempts to dissuade it and were big enough of a concern to warrant this patch.

    But, like all patches, it doesn't hold water under pressure. The whole point of sticking the fingers in (which he does, no less, so it's not just an idle requirement) is to physically confirm that this is, in fact, that same flesh and blood Jesus that was crucified by the Romans (for no explicable reason) and died and was entombed and then was brought back to life by Jehovah, no question about it.

    But that's in direct contradiction to Paul's (incoherent) ramblings about resurrection NOT being flesh and blood and that there are two distinctly different "bodies" (one made of flesh and blood and the other barely described as "spiritual" and further that they will look different).

    So, did the rules change from the time Thomas supposedly doubted circa 33 CE to when Paul wrote Corinthians circa 55 CE? Or, was "John" (writing in 100 CE) and making up the Doubting Thomas nonsense just trying to patch a problematic bit of dogma that no one was buying back when Paul tried it either and it had gotten worse with the apparent questions about breaking the legs and the like?

    No one else among the OG disciples seemed to be pushing much nonsense about a resurrection. It's just Paul and then the decades later "gospel" accounts that seem to likewise be geared to Gentiles over Jews (i.e., extensions of Paul's version of the mythology).

  4. Top | #324
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,196
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,696
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Is it a common occurrence for you to be tricked by people you thought were dead only to find out, nope! All a ruse!
    I do like that one meme, imagining my wife giving my eulogy as: Keith will probably be best remembered for all the times he faked his death, only to show up at the funeral and- Oh. There he is. In the back, wearing the big goofy hat. I'd like to thank everyone for coming, and also apologize. Again.


    But, no, I cannot imagine ANY part of the process being to demand to see the bodily effects of however my fake death worked, in order to verify I didn't die...

  5. Top | #325
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,991
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,047
    Rep Power
    22

    (View video on YouTube)

    (I'm a bit lazy tonight (tired), pardon me. )

  6. Top | #326
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,923
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,899
    Rep Power
    62
    ^ ^ ^

    That was one weird video. Christian apologists really need to take a course in logic. If you think that this video was convincing then I could equally argue (and 'prove') to you that I was abducted by aliens last weekend and spent a couple days orbiting Saturn in their flying saucer by challenging anyone who didn't believe me to prove that I wasn't.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 06-12-2019 at 01:24 AM.

  7. Top | #327
    Super Moderator Torin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    125
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    That was one weird video. Christian apologists really need to take a course in logic. If you think that this video was convincing then I could equally argue (and 'prove') to you that I was abducted by aliens last weekend and spent a couple days orbiting Saturn in their flying saucer by challenging anyone who didn't believe me to prove that I wasn't.
    The weird thing is... if the resurrection would violate physics, why isn't Christianity already disproven?

    We can deduce from the laws of physics that there was no resurrection. That's what "violate physics" means. Deducing from the laws of physics that something did not happen is considered a disproof in every other area of life. You bet your life on the laws of physics being reliable when you drive your car on the highway.

    The response will be that God can violate physics, which reveals how disingenuous the entire request to disprove the resurrection is. No evidence can prove that God didn't cause the world to act contrary to all of our evidence. You could get around any evidence based argument by appealing to God.

    And of course, they don't allow for the possibility that God could have suspended any other regularity. The idea of a mass hallucination - no, that's beyond the pale! The only miracles we're allowed to consider are the ones that they need to have happened for their theology.

  8. Top | #328
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    No, I placed it down near alchemy because, just like alchemy, it describes events that contradict physical law. People do not come back from the dead, in the same way that lead does not transmute into gold.
    Great, that was not clearly stated originally. BUT all the same, I clearly should have reasoned that from what you wrote. I withdraw that contention.

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    It's a question if whether or not it's a plausible event. Plausibility is determined by the frequency with which an event is observed in the real world. Crucifixions were a common event in the Roman period. Resurrections were not.
    That was important.
    Parsed here sentence by sentence by sentence.....
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    It's got nothing to do with absurdity; It's a question if whether or not it's a plausible event.
    YES
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Crucifixions were a common event in the Roman period. Resurrections were not.
    YES and YES
    However.............
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Plausibility is determined by the frequency with which an event is observed in the real world.
    Not even close. Frequency is but one of the criterion for plausibility. Your reasoning reminds of Hume's failed argument against miracles. If Hume were alive today he would most plausibly believe that life began to exist. That the big bang theory is plausible. The genesis of a new life form. That his own birth was plausible. All countering his third premise.
    No......
    The plausibility of and event depends upon a preponderance of the evidence not just it's frequency in reality.
    I provided four simple facts for debate as well as the best explanation. Your challenge was to provide a better explanation and defend it or to show me where my facts and/or reasoning was wrong.

    I think your attempt there was to fault my reasoning with.....because the resurrection was possibly a one time it is therefore implausible. Well that does not fly. First I'm fully aware it was a one time event. And two, the frequency of an event is not at all the only or even the best way to judge plausibility.

    Would you deny that life began to exist?

    Now finally let’s get down to the facts. Seriously you were the first to challenge the facts….
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    I’m asking you if you can provide a natural explanation that better explanations those four facts
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    They are not facts. ……… You need to show your 'facts' to be true, before I will start believing you. You can't just say that they are facts, and expect them to pass unchallenged.
    Others have just been trashing straw men.
    So Just to be clear…………..you are saying
    1- Jesus was NOT crucified and NOT placed in a tomb.
    2- the tomb was NOT empty and someone could have produced a body
    3- the disciples DID NOT believe they saw the risen Jesus
    4- the disciples were NOT transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

    That’s pretty bold.
    Shall start with number one?

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    If you blindly accept the premise that claims from the Bible are facts, you can reach your desired conclusions; But reaching false conclusions from false premises is trivial and unimpressive.
    I’m not blindly accepting them because they are in the Bible. There are many facts in the Bible that don’t require the Bible to be true. I thought the ones I provided were quite minimal and readily accepted as fact by most scholars. Including leading atheists.

    So again shall we begin with Jesus was not crucified?

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    You need to demonstrate with evidence that what you claim is factual. You haven't done that; So nobody needs to accept your claims nor any conclusions you derive from them.
    Absolutely. I fully understand my burden. I presented an argument. You are finally challenging that none of those facts are true. So it is now it is incumbent upon me to show you that each one is far more plausible than its alternative. Again shall we begin with if Jesus was crucified or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    The Bible is very weak evidence indeed. It's not even close to being sufficient to support important and implausible claims - such as that someone came back from the dead.
    At some point you, as well, will need to demonstrate that that alleged fact with evidence. Something other than because it contains miracles it therefore contains no true testimony.
    For now……………
    I’m arguing that explanation (not claim) of the resurrection is the best explanation given that it best explains the four facts. NOT because we find it in the Bible. That needs to be understood, I’m not saying the resurrection is true because it is in the Bible. Clear?
    So……….
    Doesn’t seem reasonable that we first need to establish our issues with the facts before we discuss the best explanation of those facts?

    So again shall we start with if Jesus was crucified or not? And by crucified we mean crucified to death.

    You are asserting that he was not crucified and did not die. Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    That's an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.
    That extraordinary claim sounds good but it is not the case. In reality any claim only needs sufficient evidence for belief
    Think about it.
    Your assertion itself is an extraordinary claim? You are claiming it is a universal principal. So where is your extraordinary evidence for that universal principal?

    Try this example.….. Imagine I claimed I had a pet horse. What kind of evidence would it require to prove to you I had a horse? Maybe you would want to see a picture, a video, or possibly visit me to see? Now imagine I told you I had a flying horse. Quite extraordinary…Yes? What kind of evidence would you require to believe my claim? Logically, wouldn’t the same evidence be sufficient?

    Again your extraordinary claim sounds great but does not stand up to reason.

  9. Top | #329
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    So provide the evidence and shut us all up. But you are not going to do that, are you?
    Court has begun. I have repeatedly given you 4 pieces of evidence and an explanation. Together they formed the argument of my opening statement. I have re-quoted it to you several times. You have quoted it several times.
    and here again............
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    You have not yet made an argument for your case, other than to state that you find the stories plausible.
    You don't even see it.
    I have given no story.
    I really want to discuss the argument.......which is the best explanation for these four historical facts...............

    1- Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb.
    2- the tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body
    3- the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
    4- the disciples were transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

    I contend that these four pieces of evidence can best be explained by the miraculous occurrence of the resurrection.

    That is the argument.

    I have provided it again and again and again.

    You are perfectly free to challenge those facts and that explanation and/or present a better explanation. All you keep doing is rejecting a story of flying zombies that you made up. I agree with you that flying zombies do not exist. But that in no way addresses my argument other than you can attempt to disparage it with mockery.

    So please this time address the argument I presented.

    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    A naturalistic explanation has been provided multiple times. You don't like the explanation, but that is not my problem. Repeating the same absurd nonsense over and over is not going to get you a different answer.
    I have repeatedly presented a precise argument for discussion. You have provided a vague alternative and believe all discussion is over and concluded. It's not by along shot.

    Your naturalistic argument is the people make things up. I and the jury got that. I did not ignore your argument. I challenged it. You have been challenged on your explanation and have failed to reply.
    But again.....
    What are you saying they made up and why?
    See?
    The conversation isn't over its has only begun. Your case is not better by default. You need to clarify and support it if challenged and I'm challenging it.

    Which of those four facts are made up? Did they make up his death? Did they make up the empty tomb? Why? I can't address your explanation as stated, because it does not specifically point to what they made up. My argument has nothing to do with flying zombies. You seem to be the one unwilling to get into the details, you're obsessed with flying zombies.

    Example if you say they made up is death (presented fact number 1)......then I could present to you evidence that would support the fact that he died. And we would no doubt discuss that point further. Same with fact number two and so on. Eventually we would begin discussing the best explanation of the facts on the table.

    Now in the end we would very likely not reach the same conclusion. But we would each have our evidence and reasoning on the table for the jury to decide. Do you really wish to rest your case on what you have presented thus far....that people make things up like flying zombies?

    continuing here to include post 311.....
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    You haven't given me any historical facts.
    Even though you quoted them again.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    You have simply presupposed that the stories should be considered credible.
    I gave no stories. I provided four facts and an explanation. You are free to specifically challenge any or all of them. Calling them stories doesn't make your case.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    And demanded that I explain what the motivations of the people involved in the story are. Stories, and the characters in them, say and do whatever the author wants them to say and do, which is the point you are missing.
    I"M Missing the point? Not at all.......It very well may be my point.
    look again...........
    Are you actually denying that motivation is a mitigating factor of great concern in this case?
    Really?
    Don't you realized that motivation it is the foundation of your alternative explanation that people make things up?
    You're undermining your own explanation.

    The jury is awaiting your reply.

  10. Top | #330
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Deism. It's not there in the "logically exhaustive" list.
    Yes it is. Deism is a subset of theism. Some are mono some are poly, for all purposes here it matters not.
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    I just wanted to more directly address the "if God exists then miracles are reasonable" proposition. People keep saying "God" as if which God is just obvious. In a christocentric culture, Jehovah will seem obvious. So, aside from how the miracles themselves need better evidence, the God ... even when granted only for the sake of argument that a deity exists... needs greater specificity than just "exists" and "makes universes".

    You're relying on assumptions based on cultural tradition maybe more than you know.
    NO. But I note your concern. The original request that I responded to was how can a Christian reasonably believe that miracles are possible. Thus God's existence was a given. Therefore, I was providing the reason that if God exists then miracles are possible. That simple. However, I clearly stated ....thus the bigger question is.....Is it reasonable that God exists? So the presumption you are decrying was actually assumed in the context.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Again why is that abstract?
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Jehovah's less abstract than monotheism. Jesus is the son of the father Jehovah -- that is less abstract still. Jesus died because scapegoatism does something to 'sin"... that's less abstract still. This is what I call "putting the clothes back onto the mythology" (after they got stripped off in order to help things seem more "reasonable").

    Let's not avoid details. Let's look at how sensible mythology is. Want to make sense of that blood sacrifice stuff? "God exists" doesn't help much, it doesn't make just any crazy thing possible. What sense does a blood sacrifice of a human, or man-god, make? I'm not looking at this with moral outrage but just seeking "the logic" in it...................
    Your response doesn't follow from my question. Because as you properly understood and addressed above, the context of my question was regarding the formation of an exhaustive list of world religious. One God, many gods or no god. Simple not abstract.
    Thus ........
    Directing your contention to an abstract doctrine within a religion was not in view of the question.
    Your concerns regarding those internal doctrines are of no concern to me here at this time.
    Sorry.

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •