Page 15 of 77 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 768

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #141
    Veteran Member Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,749
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    56
    Basically because Mark was the first gospel that the other gospels cribbed their "facts" from. It is odd that Paul left us so little details about any of this. Which strongly suggests there wasn't much to relate. Despite his claims to have visited James and the surviving disciples of Jesus. Who likewise didn't have much to write about. All of which hints that the gospel tall tales were just that. The people at Jerusalem who lived through all of this and followed Jesus had no great tales to relate. This tells us a lot. After James was executed, and the "Ebionites" abandoned Jerusalem, nobody cared to ask them, "What really happened?" Of maybe they did and it was rather disappointing. Jesus lived, was executed, and his disciples were waiting for his return as a messianic King. The remaining Ebionites were later adjudged as Jewish/Christian heretics. They left no writings.
    Cheerful Charlie

  2. Top | #142
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    21

    It's the EVIDENCE (reports that it happened) which make it believable, more than theories about "the laws of nature" etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    You want to scrap thousands/millions of facts from the historical record because they are reported in one source only? Do you propose doing away with millions of history textbooks containing such historical facts?
    No. Just the claims that go against the laws of nature.
    Again, Rasputin caused a child to recover from a blood disease, without any medical training. Does this go "against the laws of nature"? Your phrase "the laws of nature" is meaningless if you cannot apply it to all cases, like this one actually documented in the history books. Why can't you explain this subjective phrase? Why don't you know what it means? Why is it that you can only throw it around here and there, meaninglessly, unscientifically, subjectively, and only PRETEND that it means something?

    A savant suddenly knows how to play piano without ever having had any lessons or practicing or learning how to play. Or suddenly knows how to solve complicated math problems without ever having studied any math. Why doesn't that contradict "the laws of nature"? The only way we can believe these really happened is that they are reported to have happened. Humans cannot normally do such things. You can't play piano without ever taking any lessons or LEARNing to play, or do complicated math without ever having studied math. Abilities like these are not possible without having spent years learning how to do them.

    You believe such things happened only because they are reported to have happened. Except for this, you have to DISbelieve it. If your neighbor tells you his 1- or 2-year-old kid has just suddenly started playing Chopin or Liszt, like a concert pianist, never having had any lessons, you have to DISbelieve it. You cannot believe it unless you hear it yourself, or if witnesses confirm it. Only then can you believe it, because it goes against "the laws of nature" to do such a thing without ever going through a learning period of lessons and practicing, FOR YEARS.


    The reports that it happened are evidence.

    The reality is that we believe something happened IF IT IS REPORTED by sufficient sources that it happened, no matter how "impossible" it's supposed to be, or that it contradicts the supposed "laws of nature." According to the "laws of nature," we learn to do math or play the piano through a process of brain cell activity where these skills are acquired over years of discipline, training, repeating and improving techniques needed in order to play the right notes or solve the math problems. It contradicts the "laws of nature" to suddenly be able to do these better than a professional who studied it for 20 years.

    If these cases don't contradict the "laws of nature," then there are no "laws of nature" governing anything. How can we know what additional "laws of nature" might also be violated, if the natural "laws" governing how our brain operates can be violated? All our common sense and logic and understanding and 99.99999% of our experience dictates to us that acquiring skills requires TIME and cannot happen suddenly in only one day. But we're told in reports that this happens, for one out of every half a billion (or so) humans.

    The only answer to this is that SOMEHOW it must be possible for this to happen, because IT IS REPORTED to have happened, despite our instincts about "the laws of nature," which instincts have to be overruled in those cases where we have sufficient sources/evidence telling us that it happened.


    How much evidence is "sufficient"?

    There's no scientific determination of how many sources are needed, how many witnesses, how much access we must have to the information. All sources of information are doubted at some point. Maybe a TV documentary or Nightly News show is false, even fraudulent. We can't be absolutely certain. If we have evidence, it's reasonable to believe it. Or disbelieve it if we personally find the evidence "insufficient" to satisfy us. You can't expect everyone else to rely on your subjective feelings and outbursts about "the laws of nature" as a standard for expunging anything from the history books that you don't like.

    Some events do happen which cannot be explained and contradict our instincts about "the laws of nature." You can't dictate that they did not happen because you don't have an explanation for them. You can only choose personally not to believe it because you demand additional evidence, while someone else can reasonably believe the claim because of the evidence.


    Like the resurrection of dead people, their unaided ascent into space, . . .
    There's evidence that these happened in at least one case, 2000 years ago. Theories about "the laws of nature" cannot erase this event, for which there is evidence. If your theories about "the laws of nature" contradict the observed events which are reported from the time, why should we believe your instincts or abstract theories instead of the reported facts? The reason you know these events don't happen is lack of serious evidence/reports that they happened, not theories about "the laws of nature." Except in one case 2000 years ago, for which there is evidence -- but otherwise, such events don't happen, and that's the main reason to disbelieve such claims generally.

    But when there's real evidence that such an event happened, it cannot be ruled out as impossible. It's the evidence, or the lack of it, which tells us what happened, not meaningless theories about "the laws of nature" which cannot be applied to real cases.

    . . . talking snakes and bushes, and so on.
    There's no serious evidence that these ever happened. That's why they're not believable. We need multiple sources near the time of the alleged event.


    Since modern historians do not routinely consider supernatural claims to be factual (as you continue to imply), no . . .
    Where there's evidence, they don't rule it out as a possibility. The history books do not state that the miracles of Jesus did not happen. They leave open the possibility that the Mad Monk Rasputin did heal the child with the blood disease. They consider as factual that the child did recover as claimed by the witnesses. There is too much evidence that some kind of recovery did happen.

    . . . no rewriting of the history books will be required.
    Meaning ALL the alleged facts reported in the historical record are accepted, even if there is one source only, and if the reported event does not contradict other sources and is a normal (e.g., non-miracle) claim.

    Whereas the non-normal claims, miracle claims, require additional evidence (more than only one source), like we have for the Jesus miracle acts, which are then put into the doubtful category and are not rejected as false.


    Why are you so scared to discuss the story of Jesus's resurrection and his ascent into heaven?
    The report that this happened, from 4 (5) sources, is evidence that it happened. The bodily ascent has fewer sources, but it fits in with the rest, so is reasonable to believe. The stories from one source only (e.g., Mt. 27:52-53, the rising of corpses from graves) does not fit with the other accounts and should be rejected as unlikely (because I'm "scared" of it).


    Do you secretly doubt the story?
    Do you secretly believe the story or wonder if it might be true after all?

    It's reasonable to have doubt about the miracle stories. Most believers (maybe all) have doubts, but they hope it's true and try to suppress the doubts. It is genuine FAITH to hope it's true, though still having doubts. Most miracle stories are false, so it's reasonable to require extra evidence in a particular case thought to be an exception, and the doubt is then reduced by the extra evidence. Especially if the would-be debunkers like you keep trying but fail to debunk this evidence.


    Is that why you keep repeating your absurd arguments, to try to convince yourself?
    You help to convince me, by failing to show how the Jesus case is like all the others for which there is no serious evidence. By failing to debunk the evidence. And by always falling back on your theories and instincts and feelings that it cannot be true, despite the evidence.

  3. Top | #143
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,362
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,169
    Rep Power
    60
    Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims? There is no evidence that Jesus did these things. There is only evidence that people began telling stories about Jesus doing these things, all of which comes to us by way of biased religious people with an agenda to pimp their favorite god-myth. It's absolutely the worst form of "evidence" imaginable, no different from the evidence that Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon from golden plates containing Reformed Egyptian writing. Hell, it's not even that good since we actually have the signatures of witnesses who claim to have watched Smith do it and saw the golden plates themselves (before they were miraculously taken up into Heaven). And I'm equally certain all the Joseph Smith crap is bullshit too.

    You keep walking this tight wire where Jesus was so obscure that he was never noticed by any of the contemporary secular historians of his day -- you know, people who had the ability to write things down, and would certainly have written extraordinary things down. But at the same time the acts of Jesus were so universally known that everyone everywhere was talking about him so much that nobody doubted any of this stuff was true.

    You just can't have it both ways. Was he this obscure preacher who not one single secular historian of his era noticed? Or was he this massively well-known person whose wonderful deeds were so well received everywhere that nobody could deny that these incredible things were happening?

    it is obvious to anyone who isn't engulfed in confirmation bias that the gospels are nothing but re-worked mythology, taking older Roman, Greek, Assyrian and even Egyptian mythology and mixing it in with Jewish traditions of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc. Justin Martyr recognized the similarities and theorized that the devils had purposefully tried to deceive people by inventing those older myths before Jesus came along. We've been over this in the past and it gets old.

  4. Top | #144
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,250
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    Basically because Mark was the first gospel that the other gospels cribbed their "facts" from. It is odd that Paul left us so little details about any of this. Which strongly suggests there wasn't much to relate. Despite his claims to have visited James and the surviving disciples of Jesus. Who likewise didn't have much to write about. All of which hints that the gospel tall tales were just that. The people at Jerusalem who lived through all of this and followed Jesus had no great tales to relate. This tells us a lot. After James was executed, and the "Ebionites" abandoned Jerusalem, nobody cared to ask them, "What really happened?" Of maybe they did and it was rather disappointing. Jesus lived, was executed, and his disciples were waiting for his return as a messianic King. The remaining Ebionites were later adjudged as Jewish/Christian heretics. They left no writings.
    And, again, if we go by Lucian, then all we have as late as 165 CE is a group of splinter Jews who worshipped a man named Jesus who was crucified (not resurrected).

  5. Top | #145
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,925
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,901
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims?

    ... snip ...
    It is much easier to make asinine claims than it is to refute them. Many, many of these asinine claims strung together in one post is intended to overwhelm the opposition. It is a technique used by religious apologists called "The Gish Gallop", named after the creationist Duane Gish who is known for using this technique.

  6. Top | #146
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,250
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims?
    He evidently has no choice, which is endlessly ironic, because the whole point of a religion is that you believe on faith in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

    Clearly he's having a crisis of faith, or else he wouldn't be torturing logic so blatantly and insisting on standards that he knows he would never accept for any other religion (like Mormonism) or anything really. All it takes to write a myth is the first time you write a myth. It's not like Stephen King novels only turn into fiction after twenty years. They're fiction the second his pen hits paper.

  7. Top | #147
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,362
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,169
    Rep Power
    60
    A savant suddenly knows how to play piano without ever having had any lessons or practicing or learning how to play?
    No. It's amazing that Avett Maness was able to play "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" when he was only 11 months old. I'd be interested in seeing a video of that since it's dead certain mom should have had access to smart phones with which to bolster this claim. Alas, all we seem to have is a picture. But if you'll do some research on the subject you'll quickly see that young Avett learned to play other, more sophisticated music as time went by. He did not drag himself up to the piano at first and start playing Bohemian Rhapsody. We have no idea how much he had observed from others on his way to that first claimed recital in front of mom. Had someone else held the little guy while playing those same notes so he could watch how it was done? We don't know and he probably lacks the ability to recall. One thing is for sure: Just like every other incredible thing that we've ever found the answer to how it happens or happened, there is a perfectly rational explanation for this that does not require any intervention from any god or gods.

    Let me rephrase that:

    Humanity has a rich history of solving mysteries. Uncovering the mechanisms of things that once were only explainable as "God did it." Not once in the history of all that discovery has the actual answer been "God did it." Not once. "God" has the most impressive ongoing "0-fer" in the history of 0-fers, and the misses just keep on coming. I think it's really sad that in this modern age and with the tiniest nooks and crannies into which the God of the Gaps has had to recede, that there are people who apparently will never give up.

    And there is a perfectly rational explanation for the Jesus myths: People made it up.

  8. Top | #148
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    899
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,698
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

    If it was not unusual, why did writers make him into a miracle-worker and identify him as the Messiah? Why do we have these accounts at all, if he was an ordinary rabbi or priest? What's another example of an ordinary person being reported by 5 writers as the Messiah, and by 4 of them as a miracle-worker who healed victims and even raised the dead?
    What is it with Christians and making up shit?

    The only somewhat contemporaneous account of Jesus comes from Paul, who apparently received telepathic communications from a cosmic angel named Jesus. Paul does not place Jesus on Earth or ascribe any earthly deeds to him.

    Then comes Mark, dating to at least 40 years after Jesus, possibly much later, who does a complete 180 from Paul and creates a story of Jesus as a flesh and blood human. Serious scholars who are not fundamentalists agree that the stories in Mark are likely meant as parables, not as descriptions of historical events. Mark is pretty much all fiction, and it is impossible to determine any historical elements in this gospel. Turning Jesus into a flesh and blood human complete with a resume of made-up miracle claims is necessary to win over the largely unwashed masses, who would be much less likely to accept a cosmic superhero who only communicates via revelation.

    Later we have other gospels dating to the second century which are obvious copies of Mark, and full of even more made-up shit. And then there are the many forgeries, attempts by the "historical Jesus" cult to place Jesus in history.

    So at best we have two accounts within a hundred years of the alleged miracles of Jesus, and they contradict each other dramatically. And notably, there are no writings to be found about Jesus the celestial entity (Paul's Jesus) as these were likely systematically destroyed in the second and third centuries by the zealous Christians who wanted to sell their version of flesh and blood, miracle-performing, rising up from dead personal savior Jesus. And what we have today are copies of copies of translations of copies of copies of copies.

    That is the evidence. There is not enough to establish Jesus as a flesh and blood person, much less attribute any credibility to the miracles claims of the fan-fiction gospels. You can polish this turd as much as you like, but the stink ain't goin' away.


    Why do we have these accounts at all, if he was an ordinary rabbi or priest? What's another example of an ordinary person being reported by 5 writers as the Messiah, and by 4 of them as a miracle-worker who healed victims and even raised the dead?
    Other examples of dead-and-risen, miracle performing, personal savior mythological characters that were turned into fictional flesh and blood characters to increase their fan following:

    Osiris
    Adonis
    Romulus
    Zalmoxis
    Inanna
    Mithra (did not rise up from dead, but underwent terrible suffering/passion)

    Small list of personal savior gods predating the Jesus myth who had been resurrected from the dead or suffered through a passion. And these are just the ones that can be authoritatively documented. Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth, and every cult had one.

    You use this term "supernatural" as if no such events can ever happen even though such an event is reported to have happened, and so the report has to be rejected, no matter what. You're saying the report is automatically repudiated as false as long as you label it as a "supernatural" event. You're demanding everyone submit to your authority to designate any claim you don't like as "supernatural" and therefore false, regardless of any evidence that it's true.
    Dead people don't rise up from the grave and wander around in the streets, or fly off into the sky under their own power. This has been explained to you in depth and I am not going to repeat myself again. And it is dishonest to pretend that you don't understand what the word supernatural means, or how historians evaluate historical records.

    I am still waiting for you to provide sources for the gospel stories. We know where the authors of Luke and Matthew got their stories from (Mark and their imaginations), but how did the author of Mark come upon these stories and how did he go about verifying their credibility? Why did no contemporary historian ever write anything about this famous messiah who was performing miracles left and right? Why won't you touch the resurrection story? All reasonable questions, but likely impossible for you to answer.

  9. Top | #149
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    OCCaUSA
    Posts
    4,344
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    7,727
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Dead people don't rise up from the grave and wander around in the streets, or fly off into the sky under their own power. This has been explained to you in depth and I am not going to repeat myself again. And it is dishonest to pretend that you don't understand what the word supernatural means, or how historians evaluate historical records.
    I don't think you realize. Christians are unwilling to distinguish between the God of their imagination (brain generated God that runs stuff in their head) and a real God.

    They give their brain God free reign.

    What does this mean? They have full blown hallucinatory scenarios, in which people die, raise from the dead, etc. They attribute this to God... instead of the entertainment center of their brain (which is quite overdeveloped in the majority of Christians).

    They need to be killed off. Make the world a good place for intellectually honest people. Just say "we're sending you to your maker". They always come up with an excuse though (their brain God knows... even if they don't... the clock is ticking).

  10. Top | #150
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    21

    Why can't you give the evidence, citing the text and its date, claiming what miracle acts were done?

    Why is there no evidence for any other miracle-workers, such as we have for Jesus in the Gospel accounts? Why are there only empty claims with no specific evidence to offer?

    Was it at Trump University where you learned this scientific method?


    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Other examples of dead-and-risen, miracle performing, personal savior mythological characters that were turned into fictional flesh and blood characters to increase their fan following:

    Osiris
    Adonis
    Romulus
    Zalmoxis
    Inanna
    Mithra (did not rise up from dead, but underwent terrible suffering/passion)

    Small list of personal savior gods predating the Jesus myth who had been resurrected from the dead or suffered through a passion. And these are just the ones that can be authoritatively documented.
    Why are you unable to do anything but give a meaningless laundry list?

    This is no better than just citing the Library of Congress, having virtually every book ever published, and just saying: It's all there -- this source refutes everything you're saying!

    If you want to get serious, just take the best example from your above laundry list of alleged personal savior gods who did miracles, and give us the text for it, citing when the text was written and what it claims about the particular historical figure in question.

    When you try to do this you will find there is no evidence for any of the above characters showing that they performed miracle acts.

    "Evidence" means sources near to the time of the alleged miracle events, not traditions written down centuries later, or legends about ancient gods who did not exist as humans identified to a particular historical time and place. And it means explicit claims by the writer that the miracle acts were done by the person in question, not just a reference to some belief held by others who your source thought were naive.

    That you cannot give a serious example, citing the evidence, is further indication that there are no other examples. Especially that in exasperation you keep repeating that there are other documented examples, and yet you never give one, citing the evidence, presenting the text saying that the historical figure in question did perform such acts.

    Just quoting your favorite modern Jesus-debunker guru, without questioning him but just copying-and-pasting his laundry list and believing him because he's infallible, does not qualify as evidence.


    Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth, and every cult had one.
    Why are you so emphatic to regurgitate this falsehood from your guru-pundit celebrity but are unable to give one example, citing the particular text, showing the claim of particular miracle acts done by the supposed resurrected messiah?

    I will help you out, since you won't do your own homework: The only cult then claiming reported miracle acts was the Asclepius cult. They prayed and claimed cures, just as faith-healers do today, always attributing their miracles to an ancient healer deity, not to any current historical figure. And this cult was dying out, leading up to the 1st century AD. There are no reported miracles from this cult after about 200 BC. The reported miracles were DECREASING until they virtually disappeared by about 200 BC.

    But then, out of nowhere, the cult suddenly revived at around 100 AD, along with a new explosion of miracle claims and cults from that point and later. You can't name any miracle reports from before this time (except Jesus in the Gospels), going back to about 200 BC. But at about 100 AD the new miracle claims appear conspicuously and increase to far more than anything earlier.

    So, what happened earlier, in the 1st century, which inspired this unprecedented upsurge in miracle stories beginning around 100 (90) AD?

    If you believe in science and cause-effect, you must look for something which happened in this period, before 100 AD, to cause this new pattern of miracle stories appearing in the literature, which is an undeniable historical fact of this period. Your guru-debunker-pontiff loves to cite examples of miracle claims appearing from 100 AD and later, but is totally silent on the period earlier.

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
  •