Page 56 of 77 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 768

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #551
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    895
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,694
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Thats what I thought you said, thats why I asked if there were (if you can provide) other people around that time with the same ressurections in texts or reports or what ever, like Remez and Lumpy has been asking. ... perhaps even include those from the psuedo-ressurection list.
    The following books provide an exhaustive list of claims similar to the Jesus resurrection/personal savior story. If you are actually interested in doing your own research, this would be an excellent place to start.

    On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt


    Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical

    Or if you are lazy, you can watch his lectures on the same subject on youtube.
    Atrib helpful as usual. Trust me I will look into it (the video).
    The videos are worth watching. Dr. Carrier is an excellent speaker, the information is well presented and easy to follow, and he makes a very compelling argument for the case that the flesh-and-blood Jesus character described in the gospels was a work of fiction created by Mark. While the lectures summarize the evidence, the analyses, and the conclusions, the books provide a comprehensive review of the literature, and a detailed description of the analyses that were conducted by Dr. Carrier.

  2. Top | #552
    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 skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Parsed….


    What is sad is your weak and tortured reasoning to transform a Given for the sake of conversation into and case of special pleading. For I do not w/o context assume EoG. I have explained it to you several times. You and I have gone head to head on my evidence and reasoning for EoG. Have been for years. I explained it in detail in post 450…a personal testimony that science, philosophy and theology (in that order lead me to my justified belief that God exists……..
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Focus here………. “You accept the Bible story as absolute truth and then make asinine assertions trying to justify and support that assumption….”
    Your problem there….and I keep addressing this…..is your “AND THEN”. Your assumed order of your operations is backwards for me. Now it is not backwards for someone operating w/a blind faith. Those people do exist. But it is backwards for me.

    In very short verse…..sorry administrators….

    Science and reasoning made a god reasonable to me. My search then reasonably lead to the Biblical God was the only one reasonable of all the contenders. Now with that already established “IT THEN” became reasonable to investigate the Bible further for validity. I’m not done with ALL of that yet…..but one of the “stories” (to use your term) I reasoned through was the resurrection. And this argument I find very convincing, compelling and defendable. Again that was very short. I didn’t want to preach a testimony to you, because this board is a little testy there. But I reasoned to God not from God. Originally, prior to science and reasoning, the biblical God was just one of the contenders that were all pushed aside by my apathy to all things religious anyway. I have reasons based upon evidence why I believe he exists. THUS my faith is not blind. If I didn’t have the evidence I have I would not believe in him.

    Now…..
    My conclusions are certainly open for debate. But if you are going to debate my conclusion you must look at the evidence and reason that lead me to that conclusion……AND STOP….telling me I don’t have any evidence b/c you are assuming that I just assume he exists. Thus your special pleading counter is refuted here as well. I was waiting for you to do your part there and make your case for that naked assertion from earlier, but it seemed reasonable to refute your blind faith and special pleading counters at the same time with the one stone.
    …… read it this time.


    But now to save face you keep...... weakly twisting my stated GIVEN context…….. (of EoG for sake of moving forward a conversation on miraculous vs natural explanations) ……into a case of special pleading, because I (by your weak twist) assume EoG.

    Be reasonable.
    That jumbled mass of nonsense (I put in bold) that you put in quotes attributed to me was not posted by me. I assume that it was actually nonsense written by you. ....
    Sorry...my mistake....easy to fix.....clearly it was me quoting ME.

    To be quicker with my responses I copy "reply with quotes" into a word processor, in a temp file on my desktop to track the entire conversation I even copy the quote boxes...QUOTE=skepticalbip;692984] and just switch the names. I simply forgot to switch it to QUOTE=remez;692984]. There certainly was no malicious intent just a bad proof read.
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    If so, then it clearly demonstrates that the words "science" and "reason" are completely foreign concepts to you. The fact that you assume and assert something to be true does not make it either true nor scientifically or reasonably arrived at.
    That is a dodge on your part for two reasons…

    (1) I did not assume EoG. I just provided my path from skepiticsm to Theism to provide context on the order of operations. I did assert that my reasoning therein was open for debate. Thus rendering your assertion/assumption premature.

    (2) You failed to address the main issue of the post.

  3. Top | #553
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Atrib helpful as usual. Trust me I will look into it (the video).
    The videos are worth watching. Dr. Carrier is an excellent speaker, the information is well presented and easy to follow, and he makes a very compelling argument for the case that the flesh-and-blood Jesus character described in the gospels was a work of fiction created by Mark. While the lectures summarize the evidence, the analyses, and the conclusions, the books provide a comprehensive review of the literature, and a detailed description of the analyses that were conducted by Dr. Carrier.
    That's the math? RC's R-R scale is farcical to say the least.
    Seriously?
    check out post 334.

  4. Top | #554
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,550
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,027
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    That jumbled mass of nonsense (I put in bold) that you put in quotes attributed to me was not posted by me. I assume that it was actually nonsense written by you. ....
    Sorry...my mistake....easy to fix.....clearly it was me quoting ME.

    To be quicker with my responses I copy "reply with quotes" into a word processor, in a temp file on my desktop to track the entire conversation I even copy the quote boxes...QUOTE=skepticalbip;692984] and just switch the names. I simply forgot to switch it to QUOTE=remez;692984]. There certainly was no malicious intent just a bad proof read.
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    If so, then it clearly demonstrates that the words "science" and "reason" are completely foreign concepts to you. The fact that you assume and assert something to be true does not make it either true nor scientifically or reasonably arrived at.
    That is a dodge on your part for two reasons…

    (1) I did not assume EoG. I just provided my path from skepiticsm to Theism to provide context on the order of operations. I did assert that my reasoning therein was open for debate. Thus rendering your assertion/assumption premature.

    (2) You failed to address the main issue of the post.
    If you copy the quote boxes, your links end up going to the wrong places.

    For example, the link in your quote above [QUOTE=skepticalbip;680411], points to post 680411, which wasn't made by skepticalbip at all.

    The purpose of the numeric reference is to provide a unique link to a specific post, so that other users can go back and check that what you quoted is what was actually said; and/or so that they can determine the context of the quoted material.

    If you don't care to link to a post (or don't know the reference number), then you can simply omit the semicolon and numeric reference:

    [QUOTE=skepticalbip;680411] gives:
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Stuff you claim skepticalbip said but with a link to an unrelated post #680411
    [QUOTE=skepticalbip] gives:
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip
    Stuff you claim skepticalbip said without a link to the post he said it in
    The little blue box next to the name of the poster you are quoting is a link that's meant to point to the quoted post. If it doesn't have the right reference number, then it will link somewhere completely unrelated, which is a bit pointless.

  5. Top | #555
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,247
    Rep Power
    10
    Remez, I'm going to put this to you one last time. It is entirely irrelevant what YOU state that YOU are doing or your reasons behind it. The objective facts are that (1) you have zero evidence that a god exists and therefore cannot possibly borrow that as an assumption upon which to base any other argument and (2) reasonableness must be based on reason, not on asserting or assuming something that has not (and cannot, by definition alone if nothing else; ineffable, remember?) be proved has been proved.

    I can't claim it is reasonable to believe Scientology can "clear the planet" because I first assume--for the sake of argument--that Xenu exists and it is therefore possible to "clear the planet."

    I can't claim that it is reasonable to believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon on gold tablets that later vanished, because I first assume--for the sake of argument--that Jesus existed and appeared in America and gave Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon on gold tablets that later vanished.

    The qualifier "for the sake of argument" does not grant you license to just assert or assume ANYTHING to be true as a basis for your new argument.

    That is literally saying, "For the sake of my argument, let's assume my argument has been proved true." How can it possibly be for the sake of your argument to just assume it is true? What is it then that you are asking others to contemplate for the sake of?

    Your argument is: Given the fact that a god exists, it is reasonable to believe in miracles.

    Yes?

    The additional problem with it is, even if we were all to just accept the notion of a god existing, it is STILL not "reasonable" to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Why? Because how do any of us know that a god has the power to resurrect others from the dead?

    You have evidently loaded the name "God" with special powers that you are just assuming to all also be true and/or accepted--for the sake of argument--to be true. But you are trying to argue reasonableness.

    I'll define it again:

    in accordance with reason; a statement offered in explanation or justification
    No human being has ever been resurrected from the dead. You are claiming one has. You offer no proof of this claim, other than somebody else told you this happened and they pinky swear it did and they really really believed it and said they saw it and so that's your "evidence."

    it is not evidence. Not even "bad" evidence, it's straight up NOT evidence. It is an unproved claim. Which means YOURS is an unproved claim.

    So, NOW, you are trying to turn the tables on everyone else and say, "Ok, but, I'm not talking about proving anything. I'm talking about reasonableness."

    Ok. Then what are your reasons for believing this unproved anecdotal claim?

    Your response is to once again invoke "reasonableness." In effect: I believe it is reasonable that a being with the power to resurrect the dead, exists and therefore, the explanation for the unproved anecdotal claims that Jesus resurrected from the dead are grounded in my reasonable belief that a god with the power to resurrect exists.

    Do you now see why--no matter WHAT you say in your defense of making any such assumptions/statements for the sake of argument--that such argumentation is not acceptable and cannot possibly be for the sake of any argument?

    No. Matter. What.

    Here, let's make it painfully clear for you. Get rid of the names "Jesus" and "God" so that you can't possibly be distracted by your beliefs.

    To argue the reasonableness of believing a story of the resurrection of Bob Smith, you must first PROVE that there exists a being with the power to resurrect humans from the dead. If you can't first prove that--not merely think it, too, is "reasonable"--then how could you possibly argue reasonableness in regard to anything to do with a story about Bob Smith being resurrected from the dead?

    Clear? You can't just once again assert reasonableness in believing that there exists a being with the power to resurrect humans from the dead, because then you are merely stating a tautology: it is reasonable to believe X, because it is reasonable to believe Y, because it is reasonable to believe Z, ad infinitum.

    Remember, reasonableness entails explanatory power, right? Iow, the explanation for the story that someone thinks Bob Smith resurrected from the dead is because there exists a being with powers to resurrect people from the dead.

    NOT, because it is reasonable to first believe that there exists a being with powers to resurrect people from the dead.

    You know ALL of this to be true in regard to any other claim but your own, but again, just plug in Scientology.

    Your argument, translated into Scientology terms would read:

    I have concluded, based on evidence, that it is reasonable to believe that, 75 million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in spacecraft that looked just like DC-8 airplanes, stacked the people around volcanoes and then killed them all with hydrogen bombs, thereby releasing their thetans (immortal spirits) who in turn waited around inside the volcanoes for millions of years until homo sapiens sapiens evolved and then adhered to them, causing all of their spiritual harms that non-believers incorrectly call "psychological problems."

    Given that fact--for the sake of argument--it is therefore reasonable that we can clear the planet of these spiritual harms through a process known as "auditing."
    As you can clearly and readily see, NOTHING about any of that is reasonable, no matter the "sake of argument" qualifier.

  6. Top | #556
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post

    Sorry...my mistake....easy to fix.....clearly it was me quoting ME.

    To be quicker with my responses I copy "reply with quotes" into a word processor, in a temp file on my desktop to track the entire conversation I even copy the quote boxes...QUOTE=skepticalbip;692984] and just switch the names. I simply forgot to switch it to QUOTE=remez;692984]. There certainly was no malicious intent just a bad proof read.

    That is a dodge on your part for two reasons…

    (1) I did not assume EoG. I just provided my path from skepiticsm to Theism to provide context on the order of operations. I did assert that my reasoning therein was open for debate. Thus rendering your assertion/assumption premature.

    (2) You failed to address the main issue of the post.
    If you copy the quote boxes, your links end up going to the wrong places.

    For example, the link in your quote above [QUOTE=skepticalbip;680411], points to post 680411, which wasn't made by skepticalbip at all.

    The purpose of the numeric reference is to provide a unique link to a specific post, so that other users can go back and check that what you quoted is what was actually said; and/or so that they can determine the context of the quoted material.

    If you don't care to link to a post (or don't know the reference number), then you can simply omit the semicolon and numeric reference:

    [QUOTE=skepticalbip;680411] gives:
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Stuff you claim skepticalbip said but with a link to an unrelated post #680411
    [QUOTE=skepticalbip] gives:
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip
    Stuff you claim skepticalbip said without a link to the post he said it in
    The little blue box next to the name of the poster you are quoting is a link that's meant to point to the quoted post. If it doesn't have the right reference number, then it will link somewhere completely unrelated, which is a bit pointless.
    Thank you.
    That was really a big help.
    I can still use the wp for quickness and ease, but now I can give proper attention to the number.
    Sorry for not knowing that.
    I'll adjust.

  7. Top | #557
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    7,639
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,679
    Rep Power
    81
    Maybe remez is just arguing a tautology?
    “If we assume a miracle-worker exists, then it is reasonable to assume miracles happen.” This is true, if silly.

    And he can’t reasonably go on to say, “and further reasonable to assume that THIS event was one of them,” unless he’s assuming that the assumed miracle worker is making regular and frequent miracles of resurrection. Because if this is the only resurrection miracle out there, then it’s still not reasonable to assume anything about it.

  8. Top | #558
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,921
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,897
    Rep Power
    62
    ^^^
    And, if Remez assumes the argument actually means something significant, we can also posit that if Santa (and the powers attributed to him) are real then it is reasonable to believe that he visits the homes of all children on Christmas eve and leaves toys and candies for the ones he knew were 'nice' and a lump of coal for those he knew were 'naughty'. And, of course, he knows when you are sleeping and knows when you are awake. He knows if you are good or bad so be good for goodness sake.

  9. Top | #559
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,067
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,106
    Rep Power
    74
    The real question is what to make of these tall tales. Specifically, are we dealing with a brain phenomenon and is the religious behavior nothing more than a confabulation? That would be my guess.

    Look at the evidence we have. Literally billions of adult humans, some more forcefully than others, are telling us they have contact with invisible, magical, super-powered beings that they are going to live with one day. Hello! To a rational person like myself that is nothing short of astonishing, and I wish to understand how it is happening neurologically.

    I believe it is more than pshchodynamic behavior, it is being enabled and maintained by a neurological condition. To me it comes across as a kind of denial such as we would see in a stroke victim with anosognosia where the patient denies they have a resulting paralysis and instead invents stories to explain how they do not have a paralysis or limitation of any kind.

    Rationally speaking, god stories and miracle stories are confabulations evidencing an underlying neurological condition. I hope I live long enough to find out what the cause is for religious behavior and story invention.

  10. Top | #560
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,247
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    The real question is what to make of these tall tales. Specifically, are we dealing with a brain phenomenon and is the religious behavior nothing more than a confabulation? That would be my guess.

    Look at the evidence we have. Literally billions of adult humans, some more forcefully than others, are telling us they have contact with invisible, magical, super-powered beings that they are going to live with one day. Hello! To a rational person like myself that is nothing short of astonishing, and I wish to understand how it is happening neurologically.

    I believe it is more than pshchodynamic behavior, it is being enabled and maintained by a neurological condition.
    It's not all that mysterious. 99% of the people you're talking about were literally programmed to believe this (and other similar nonsense) since birth. When the only humans in your entire life--your parents--who hold your life in theirs tell you what it is you believe in over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over ....

    That seems like a lot, right? It's only 214 times. There are 53 Sundays in a year. So that's only about from age 5 to 9 and not taking in account the thousands of times that the child's family and friends and community will reinforce those beliefs, such that, almost two decades before their brain is fully mature (at the 25 year mark), a child growing up in a typical American household even in this day and age of technology will likely be told what they believe in (and had it reinforced consistently by friends, family and community) some ten thousand times? Conservatively. Probably more on the order of hundred to two hundred thousand times and if you throw into the mix all of the symbols and sayings and crosses and our money and Christmasses and funerals and billboards and TV ads and pamphlets and debates and nightly reminders to pray, etc., we're probably talking on the order of the same message being drilled into any given immature brain in America--but particularly in the suburbs and rural areas and pretty much the entire South if not most of the Midwest and significant sections of every State in the Union--around a couple of million times before their brain is even approaching maturity.

    Again, ALL of which is fully reinforced by just about every single person in their immediate sphere of influence and not just strangers, but the people they trust the absolute most. ALL constantly affirming and confirming that their beliefs are real and absolute and unquestionable and if they don't believe they will be eternally punished.

    I mean, we know brainwashing works in a number of ways and how cognitive dissonance backs cults and we know repetitive forms of torture work to affect behavior and beliefs, etc., so it's really not all that surprising.

    Hell, we have an entire government and corporate structure that continues to denigrate all science (but particularly climate change) and that is literally killing us off one by one and yet no change in beliefs.

    And it's ALL brainwashing. Programming. Operant conditioning. Whatever you want to call it.

    Why do you think one of the most often repeated phrases in any church in the US in particular is "Suffer the children unto me"? Or why our military training is all about breaking the individual first and foremost so that they can "build" a soldier?

    Because these tactics work really really well and have worked well for thousands of years.

    I'm not sure about every Priest, but I can guarantee you every single Pope to have ever existed was an atheist who fully knew that the Catholic church was always a Roman-concocted power structure to subjugate the masses far better than their military ever could.

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
  •