Page 101 of 101 FirstFirst ... 519199100101
Results 1,001 to 1,005 of 1005

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #1001
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,705
    Rep Power
    24

    No -- either it happened or it didn't. Hopefully it did because it means the possibility of eternal life.

    Why make it complicated?


    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    bottom line: The evidence is that the miracle acts of Jesus really did happen. The only evidence that they did not happen is the ideological premise that miracle events cannot happen. Except for this ideology, the Jesus miracle acts are based on the same kind of historical evidence as much (most) of our mainline history.
    If it's the laws of physics, which we can verify today, versus a handful of miracle stories from thousands of years ago, I know what I'm betting on.
    The miracles of Jesus did not necessarily violate the laws of physics. That natural law is overturned is an interpretation of what happened, not necessarily the fact. The evidence is that it happened, with no explanation how it was done, including anything about revoking natural law. Possibly the natural law was revoked, but also it's possible the acts were done in accordance with the natural law, and we just don't know how.

    So it isn't necessary to choose one over the other.


    Besides, you presumably want us to base our lives on these accounts and pass laws based on them (e.g., banning abortion).
    No, that has nothing to do with whether it happened or not, or whether it's believable.


    In that case, the standard of evidence is necessarily much higher than for . . .
    No, the standard is the same as for all other alleged events, regardless what one's interpretation of it is, or how one would react to it.

    . . . higher than for any other ancient event - they need to be proven [I]beyond a . . .
    No, all miracle claims require extra evidence. And there's no agreed quantity of extra evidence that is required. But the extra evidence required has nothing to do with anyone's prediction of dire consequences which would happen if everyone believes this. Even if you think it means everyone would commit suicide, that still doesn't make the standard of evidence any higher. The purpose of seeking the truth is not to prevent panic or head off a disaster. Except in the sense that the truth found can be put to use in some cases for a practical purpose. But the basic truth-seeking has value regardless whether it's put to a practical use for something.

    . . . need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    No, we need evidence, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And for miracle claims there needs to be extra evidence, like we have extra evidence for the Jesus miracle acts but virtually no evidence for other reported miracles in antiquity.

    It's pretty simple, matter-of-fact.

  2. Top | #1002
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,751
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    33,228
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    No serious example should simply be dismissed. But is this miracle claim/comparison serious, or only for laughs?




    There's a flaw in comparing a serious claim with a non-serious one. And yet, to satisfy the demands of logic, we have to take the comparison seriously:

    There are reported cases of dead persons -- i.e., thought to be dead -- coming back to life. The inevitable explanation is that they were not really dead. And yet there's not necessarily a clear explanation in all the reported cases.

    Probably none of them are the same as the Jesus Resurrection. And yet it's not certain what the explanation is in all those cases, and there's no biological explanation for the Jesus Resurrection. So it's not correct to simply say "nobody has ever come back from being dead." If someone thinks a particular case was really special, then it should be looked into. There's much about it that's not known. E.g., there are problems defining exactly what is the dividing line between alive and dead, so that there have been some extremely rare mistakes of someone pronounced dead who was not dead.

    If the Jesus Resurrection is singular, with no other case of it ever in history, this does not mean it couldn't have happened or has to be impossible. Rather, it means we need the extra sources in order to believe it. We have to discount any such claim if there's only one source, or if the claim originates from centuries later than the event allegedly happened, like almost all ancient miracle claims.




    No, the modern Santa myth is a composite of more than only one historical person or legend. It's more than only the historical St. Nicholas character.


    . . . in which case Jesus is less real than Santa Claus.
    If we go by the facts, there's much more evidence that Jesus was one person in history, at a particular time and location, than there is evidence for St. Nicholas. The evidence for St. Nicholas is much less, but still enough to confirm that he really lived, as an unusual but non-superhuman figure.

    But the modern magic Santa figure is impossible to identify with any particular date and location in history. So any claims about proving or disproving him have to first identify when and where he did something in history which was reported, and what the sources are. And since no one seriously ever tries to produce any such sources, the only conclusion must be that it's admittedly fantasy only and thus not comparable to someone identified in history to a particular location and time, based on documents from that period.


    But that doesn't change the fact that any adult who believes in either should be deeply embarrassed at their naivety.
    It's better to believe or disbelieve based on the evidence rather than embarrassment or fear of being called names by a debunker on a crusade to erase an event from history for which there is evidence.
    Dude, both claims are equally serious.

    That's the whole point.

    Indeed, you reject (at length) all but one of mankinds imaginary and miraculous fictions. That you defend (at even greater length) the remaining one, tying yourself in knots in an attempt to allow only evidence for your favourite, is bizarre and infantile; And is made worse by the massive meta-evidence of the fact that for many of the ones you reject, there are people just like you using the same specious reasoning to reject YOUR choice in favour of their own.

    Just grow up already.

  3. Top | #1003
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,752
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,965
    Rep Power
    57
    Hmmmmnnnn. There were about 500 million souls on earth in BC/AC 0 there are at least 16 times that many souls now. There was little or no knowledge of scientific method then there is much now. So let's reject current estimates of events in favor of ancient claims of events.


    bzzzzzzt.

    I wonder why we're just now getting to the idea that other than big bang is possible when just 2000 years ago the heavens were firmament was solid knowledge.

  4. Top | #1004
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,092
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,891
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And we know they cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts, because they all relate events (and dialogue) that they could not possibly have been present to eye-witness.

    And around and around and around it goes, with Lumpy etal simply ignoring every salient point in favor of fiating their faith for some pointless reason, since it's faith and already does not need any reasoning behind it.
    What we are seeing with Lumpy is preaching turned into mania. Lumpy has been beating this particular rotting equine cadaver for well over two years at this point. He never responds to anything people say, so its not like he is here to engage in discussion. He simply keeps repeating the same mantra over and over:

    For the Jesus claims to be believed as probably true, we need more than one source, and we have four or five sources within decades of the alleged events.
    That's it. That is the sum-total of his argument. He constructs elaborate walls of text that say nothing, and his entire argument can be summed up in one simple sentence. With Lumpy, there is no discussion on epistemology or standards of evidence.

    He doesn't explain where his proposed standard comes from, or what reasoning he used to establish this standard.
    He doesn't explain why this standard should be considered reliable.
    He doesn't provide any context as to the situations this standard might apply to.
    He never discusses the evidence for the supernatural Bible stories which he claims should be believed:
    like the origin and authorship of these stories,
    how the authors came by this knowledge,
    how these authors verified these stories to be factual,
    the cultural and religious biases of the authors,
    why the accounts of the different gospels differ, often quite dramatically,
    and why the authors wrote these stories.
    He doesn't discuss the fact that the Bible stories we read today are copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of copies, and there is no way to establish what elements of the stories go back to the first century.
    He doesn't provide any evidence outside the Bible that corroborate the Bible stories.
    He doesn't explain why no contemporary historian ever bothered to document any of the claims, especially considering that the Bible alleges that these events were witnessed by many people, and that Jesus' supernatural exploits were well known.
    He doesn't discuss why this standard cannot be applied to other stories concerning supernatural events and gods/prophets that humans have invented.
    He doesn't explain why he dismisses other supernatural stories (stories not included in the Bible) as likely untrue even when these stories are supported by better quality evidence than the evidence supporting the Bible stories (which is practically nonexistent).
    He ignores arguments made by others that point out the flaws in his assertions and arguments.
    He claims that the standards used to judge supernatural claims should be the same as those used to judge other historical events that do not involve supernatural claims.
    He claims that his proposed standard is the standard modern historians use.
    He doesn't explain why the resurrection story should be considered credible when so many other stories in the Bible (the Noachian flood, the origin and age of the universe and so on) are demonstrably false.
    He doesn't discuss naturalistic explanations for the stories, even though such explanations are vastly more probable than any claim of supernatural intervention.
    And so on...

    The other implication of Lumpy's claim is that everything we know about reality means nothing, as a supernatural creature can bend reality to its will at any time or place it chooses. That is the chaotic universe Lumpy's brain inhabit.

    Someone wrote a story about a flying zombie, and that is sufficient reason to accept the story as probably true. That is what Lumpy has been preaching for well over two years, repeating his mantra over and over like a cockatoo. That is the kind of destruction religion wreaks on the human brain.

  5. Top | #1005
    Veteran Member funinspace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,569
    Archived
    10,245
    Total Posts
    13,814
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And we know they cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts, because they all relate events (and dialogue) that they could not possibly have been present to eye-witness.

    And around and around and around it goes, with Lumpy etal simply ignoring every salient point in favor of fiating their faith for some pointless reason, since it's faith and already does not need any reasoning behind it.
    What we are seeing with Lumpy is preaching turned into mania. Lumpy has been beating this particular rotting equine cadaver for well over two years at this point. He never responds to anything people say, so its not like he is here to engage in discussion.
    Actually, Lumpy has been working his Miracle Max version of Christianity for about 5 years now, where the idea that Jesus is God almost exclusively because of the healing miracles in the Gospels...
    From Jan 2015 talking about his Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC):
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post108661


    He simply keeps repeating the same mantra over and over:

    For the Jesus claims to be believed as probably true, we need more than one source, and we have four or five sources within decades of the alleged events.
    That's it. That is the sum-total of his argument. He constructs elaborate walls of text that say nothing, and his entire argument can be summed up in one simple sentence. With Lumpy, there is no discussion on epistemology or standards of evidence.
    Actually, Lumpy has adjusted his apologetic a little. When he started he either believed or stated a lot more blatantly false garbage than he did later and today. Not sure if he still thinks that his Jesus almost never cited the OT or not, but he was called on that a few times with evidence from all 3 synoptic gospels. After all these years, it is hard to remember just how much of the Bible he has thrown out (birthing narrative; the Deluge; the day the earth stood still; Sermon on the Mount; et.al...all in the trash bin) with the baby...

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
  •