Page 76 of 77 FirstFirst ... 266674757677 LastLast
Results 751 to 760 of 768

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #751
    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 Keith&Co. View Post
    I got curious about Learner's compliment on logic.
    That should tell you something right there.

  2. Top | #752
    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

    Fanatic Jesus-Debunker propagandist parading as a scholar

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    Matthew Ferguson, a historian with a PHD, describes ancient history. Ancient historical writers who wrote history and why they are historians, and the gospels, why the writers of the gospels are not considered historians by modern day historians.
    Neither was Cicero an "historian" or Philo the Alexandrian, both of whom wrote of events and are credible sources for history. The accounts of non-historians are not dismissed as though they are unreliable as sources for the historical events. Much of the historical record is derived from written reports from non-historians.

    ALL the ancient writings contain a mixture of fact and fiction. NONE is a 100% reliable source for history. In all cases, for every account or report of events, it is necessary to compare with other sources, look for inconsistencies, use common sense, seek verification. If the report is confirmed by other sources saying the same thing, then it increases the credibility of the particular claim. But the same source might be right at one point and wrong at another.

    We have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracle acts, and these are not contradicted by any evidence produced by anyone so far. Contrary to other ancient miracle claims for which there is not comparable evidence.

    Ferguson obsesses on Thucydides as the role model for historians, as though all reliable sources must conform to his high standards. But even if we agree that Thucydides is the #1 "batting champ" of historians, the reality is that we must accept ALL the sources, with all their flaws, in order to find the truth, not only for all the periods that Thucydides does not cover, but even for his own time, because every additional source adds further to our information.


    ALL sources are legitimate (including the Gospels),
    not only select "historians" like Thucydides.

    You cannot neatly classify all the writers into 2 categories: the "historians" who told the facts and the "storytellers" who "made up shit." Thucydides condemned Herodotus as a "storyteller," and yet we rely on Herodotus also, and all the others, including the non-historians. We have to take every report individually, from each source, not lump them all into one mass and condemn it all as "fiction" or accept it all on faith as "fact" because it follows the Thucydides model.

    There is no legitimate point in classifying the Gospels into some non-"historical" category and pretending that therefore they have no credibility.

    The fact is that all historians of the 1st century rely on the New Testament as one of their sources, for the events in Judea-Galilee-Palestine. Even those who brand much of it as fiction, or propaganda, etc., still accept much of it as credible evidence for what happened. The Gospels have to be dissected, analyzed, picked apart, to separate the fact from the fiction, like all the other sources have to be. Regardless what category or "genre" you choose to put them into.

    Only if you be careful to recognize the propaganda element, including his obsession to classify the Gospels as "fiction" in order to arbitrarily dismiss the miracle stories as unhistorical, and also the lies he tells in order to promote his bias. Here is an example:

    I certainly do not trust miracle claims, simply because a historical text records them. Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels.
    This statement is a lie. To justify this he cites one possible example which might pass as a reported "miracle" better attested and corroborated than Jesus in the Gospels, but only because there are two mainline historians who report it, Tacitus and Suetonius -- i.e., the story of the Emperor Vespasian doing a healing miracle. If we accept this as a reported miracle, more credible because it comes from the two recognized historians, this is the ONLY case there is in all the ancient literature which could be described as a miracle "far better attested" etc. Two historians reporting this one case is not "many historians" reporting miracles "far better attested" etc.

    Rather, there is this ONE ONLY case, not many, in all the ancient historical literature, where we have a reported miracle event which comes from reliable sources, near the time of the event, for this comparison. For the Jesus Resurrection we have 5 sources, close to the event, so it is dubious to say this Vespasian story is "far better attested."

    In any case, there is no other case of a reported miracle act attested in written documents. And of course such a case as the reported Vespasian miracle can easily be explained (as due to mythologizing), how such publicity about the powerful Emperor could have circulated, in popular rumor, considering his widespread celebrity status -- In comparison to Jesus, who had no status or wide reputation until long after his death, and whose reputation as a miracle-worker cannot be explained as due to mythologizing.

    And Ferguson shows his incompetency with this pathetic example of a "miracle" claim:

    The historians Tacitus (Ann. 6.20), Suetonius (Gal. 4), and Cassius Dio (64.1) all independently corroborate that the emperor Tiberius used his knowledge of astrology to predict the future emperor Galba’s reign.
    Ferguson here seems to be groping for a miracle example EARLIER than Jesus in the Gospels. I.e., the Vespasian story didn't appear in writing until after 100 AD, after the Gospel accounts were in circulation. So, to make his point, Ferguson searches for an example of an earlier "miracle" he can cite, and all he can come up with is a prediction which came true.

    The same prediction was also made by Emperor Augustus, with whom Galba was popular. It was an easy prediction which had a good probability of turning out right. So even if a long-shot prediction might be called a "miracle," this one was not a long shot, and it's wacky to compare this to miracles like healing the blind or lepers. That Ferguson can do no better than this actually proves the opposite of what he claims above, i.e., NO ancient source reports miracle events attested to as well as Jesus in the Gospels.

    His phrase "Many ancient historians report miracles . . . etc." makes his statement a lie. Had he said there were some other miracle claims not from historians, such as the Asclepius inscriptions, he might at least avoid the 4½ Pinocchios he gets for this whopper.

    The Asclepius reported miracles are from worshipers at the temples, and the priests, doing rituals to the ancient Asclepius deity. These are in the same category as today's Christian worshipers praying for the sick at church, or being prayed for by the pastor/priest, and in cases where they recover they say it's a miracle. And in very rare cases they claim an unusual instant healing takes place. The only witnesses ever present, including the victims prayed for, are worshipers of the healing god and disciples of the priest or pastor. These are not comparable to the miracles of Jesus, where many of the witnesses were non-disciples, and almost all the healed victims were non-disciples.

    With his "Many ancient historians report miracles" lie, Ferguson proves he is a propagandist first, and a scholar second. He puts his ideology first, ahead of the facts. And his dogmatic ideology is simply: There can be no miracle events, ever, and so therefore the Jesus miracles cannot have happened. That sums up his entire argument in his 100 miles of Text Walls, pretending that his conclusion is based on scholarly research, when it's all really based on this one simple dogmatic premise that no miracles can ever have happened regardless of any evidence.

  3. Top | #753
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,247
    Rep Power
    10
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.

  4. Top | #754
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,184
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,684
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: Just no, alright. Tired of doing homework for both sides and being ignored. So, no.
    Lumpen: See!? You can't address my points! No one can address my points!
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text...

  5. Top | #755
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,985
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,041
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    If you (plural) can't take time to read how Lumpen sensibly addresses each of the quotes in his post (you need only take the particular parts you like to dicuss) then obviously, just as you've responded in the above - EDIT: the discussion with Lumpen is not for you.

    (It could look a tad like handwaving tbh)
    Last edited by Learner; 09-18-2019 at 02:44 AM.

  6. Top | #756
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,184
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,684
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    If you (plural) can't take time to read how Lumpen sensibly addresses each of the quotes in his post (you need only take the particular parts you like to dicuss) then obviously, just as you've responded in the above - this thread is not for you.

    (It could look a tad like handwaving tbh)
    Problem is, this is all Lumpy has ever done, in any of his threads.
    We have read his responses, and critiqued his arguments, in some detail, and it matters not. He will just repeat himself further on, insisting the same vlaims, as if they were never addressed.
    And when people get tired of the effort profucing no effects, they stop spending time on each and every point in the Wall Of Text.
    And any point not addressed in the most recent reply, Lumpy hails as victorious, BECAUSE NO ONE CAN REFUTE IT, where the fact is at odds with this claim.

  7. Top | #757
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,247
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    If you (plural) can't take time
    What part of the above are you not comprehending? We have taken EXCESSIVE time to address every single one of his arguments in fine detail, countering literally everything he has argued. To which he simply responds by repeating his disproved, failed arguments.

    Do you just not understand what it means to be proven wrong or have your argument fail? Is that it? Do you not know what counter argumentation entails? Are you broken in that regard, because I guarantee you if we were talking about any other subject--like why 2 + 2 = 4, let's say--you would never in a billion years be defending anyone that repeatedly says, "No, 2 + 2 = 48" no matter how many times it is explained why 2 + 2 could not equal 48.

    And yes, it is precisely that simple for all the multiple objective reasons that have already been exhaustively provided.

  8. Top | #758
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    7,639
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,679
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Thread: You’re wrong for these objective reasons.
    Lumpen: Wall of denial text that doesn’t address the reasons.
    If you (plural) can't take time to read how Lumpen sensibly addresses each of the quotes in his post (you need only take the particular parts you like to dicuss) then obviously, just as you've responded in the above - EDIT: the discussion with Lumpen is not for you.
    I invite you, Learner, to read the non-lumpen posts and compare them to the lumpen posts and see where they are NOT addressing him. Then take that thought and show how Lumpen did address the point he was supposed to. I’m surprised that you would loo at this thread and make a claim that seems to say, “no one is addressing Lumpen’s sensible, on-topic replies!”

    I am really really surprised that you feel no one addresses his claims. So incredibly much energy has been spent on it, in great detail with patient repetition.

    I just... yeah. Really surprised you think :umpen is the one being ignored here.

  9. Top | #759
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,431
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,377
    Rep Power
    61
    Even if Learner went back and read it all, he'd still agree with Lumpenproletariat and not comprehend why people end up feeling frustrated at the repetitiveness instead of convinced (at least willing to concede there's something "sensible" in it).

    Xtians so often treat their arguments as if they're new each time they're presented again. The history of the arguing doesn't matter to them at all. What matters to them is you can't have understood the point if you haven't at least allowed the Christian viewpoint is a reasonable one (or that it's "sensible"). And clearly since there was some mocking, you haven't conceded the reasonableness. And if you can't do that then maybe 'the discussion is not for you'. Mocking theists = closeminded, because they can't possibly be wrong.
    Last edited by abaddon; 09-21-2019 at 08:06 PM.

  10. Top | #760
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,247
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Even if Learner went back and read it all, he'd still agree with Lumpenproletariat and not comprehend why people end up feeling frustrated at the repetitiveness instead of convinced (at least willing to concede there's something "sensible" in it).

    Xtians so often treat their arguments as if they're new each time they're presented again. The history of the arguing doesn't matter to them at all. What matters to them is you can't have understood the point if you haven't at least allowed the Christian viewpoint is a reasonable one (or that it's "sensible"). And clearly since there was some mocking, you haven't conceded the reasonableness. And if you can't do that then maybe 'the discussion is not for you'. Mocking theists = closeminded, because they can't possibly be wrong.
    I think it’s even more broken. They think that the mere fact that an argument exists is the same thing as the subject of the argument being proved. They don’t understand the steps involved to go from stating a proposition and deriving a conclusion. Because, of course, they start with a conclusion and then work backwards.

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
  •