Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Astonished]

I would agree, that it would be incorrect, to engage in rational discourse, over that which is subjective.  However, I would disagree, that these things are unfalsifiable.  Hence I don't understand nor share your concern and confusion. [1] Perhaps you can clarify (or re-evaluate that they are unfalsifiable).  I also think that you may have confusion on what my faith consists of.  [2] My faith is in God, not about God.  I don't think that it is about taking a blind leap, and I don't advocate or think that people should have that kind of faith.  


If it is a subjective matter, then I would agree.   [3] However I don't think that your statements here make much sense when it is objective whether talking about religion or just one's worldview in general.  
Thanks for the very polite questions... I hope this helps.

Thanks for your response.  Out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying supernatural claims?

Regarding [1], my confusion lies in trying to establish the truth of supernatural claims via naturalistic tools such as human reason/logic.  Furthermore, if supernatural claims can be understood or falsified via naturalistic means, then are these claims really based in the supernatural? Is it more accurate to say that "supernatural" describes humanity's lack of knowledge about how reality works?  

In regards to [2], could you please clarify the following statement: "my faith is in God, not about God."

Regarding [3], if one's worldview/religious faith is falsifiable, then does that open the door to subjectivity?

Thanks for your polite answer, sir.

You won't get one. We should all know that by now.

[GUBU]

While I am going to let you have the last word in our back and forth-

Thank you for acknowledging me.  Some people just stop responding which I find rude, considering I do take the time to give thoughtful responses; snark non withstanding. 😏

I AM going to clear this little misunderstanding up. 

In my OP, I said "For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence." under the section where I was defining my terms.  This is because we just came off a rather long thread where some of you, despite logic and the reality that we as a society do accept testimony as evidence, actually have the position that testimony is NOT evidence. I was not going to rehash that nonsense.

Again...you're just asserting that witness testimony counts as evidence, solely for the purposes of this argument. Do you see how that looks?  And, now you're declaring winner of a debate we just had on the subject, which was FAR from settled when you and Road dropped out.

Your entire argument here, in defense of special pleading charges, hinges on us accepting your assertion of witness testimony as evidence.  Obviously, I'm no expert on formal argument structure, but your position in the OP looks something like this:

1. Witness testimony is evidence.
2. Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions.
3. If Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions, then it has more evidence (your "justified" difference). 
4. Since Christianity is better evidenced than other religions, special pleading does not apply.

No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1.  And, if you can't get 1. by us, you can't get to 3.  If you can't get to 3., then you haven't justified your conclusion.  Asking us to accept without question, or assume for no other reason than the success of your argument that testimony is evidence, is absolutely unfair, and to me, a dishonest debate tactic.  Your opinion that our objections to the arguments for "witness testimony is evidence" are nonsense, is just that.  An opinion.  It has no bearing on anything in this argument regarding special pleading.

YOU have to read in a lot of extra meaning to those words to come up with "For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence

Is that not what you're asking us to do?  I mean, isn't that your whole thing? That the Bible; the Christian testimony, is the evidence?  Aren't you the one who gets bent out of shape every time someone tells you, "the Bible is the claim, not the evidence"?

I'd like to point out that Steve's point 2 doesn't hold up either. Christianity doesn't have witness testimony. At, best it has third hand Chinese Whispers of testimony. But most likely what it has is shit the writer made up to make his faction's claims look good.

[Minimalist]

Steve would not understand the concept of witness testimony if it kicked him in the balls.

[Brian37]

Same problem with every follower of every religion. NO EVIDENCE!

We cant dumb it down any further for you. 

"Because I say so" is not an argument.

There is only ONE method that is universal in settling disputes between competing claims and that is scientific method.

I disagree with your assertion that the scientific method is the only method of settling disputed claims.  I'll wait for you to settle it, using the scientific method!

When it comes to science YES! Religion is merely something humans pass down to their kids worldwide. Funny how our species and planet were around long before any written religion. 

You wont find any law of thermodynamics in any ancient Buddhist writings.
You wont find any theory of gravity formulas in the Koran.
You wont find any scientific language in the Torah or Talmud explain the sun burning from nuclear fusion.
You won't find the words adenine, guanine, thymine, or cytosine in the Hindu Vedas.
Nor does your bible explain how a sperm fertilizes an egg.

There is no assertion on my part by stating the fact that humans worldwide as compared to today, back then didn't know shit about the nature of reality. 

You do what most humans do, you confuse comic book morality of antiquity as being the seat of human morality to justify your club and book. Our species morality isn't in Charlotte's Web or Star Wars or Harry Potter either. 

Most humans don't want to face their finite existence and concocting buying and selling religion, is nothing more than an artificial form of tribalism born out of human ignorance. 

Our species ability to be compassionate and non violent, is not in a holy book, not in a holy person of any religion. Our species ability to be cruel and violent is also not in a holy writing, or a fictional evil spirit or demon or devil. Our species ability to be cruel and violent is also in our evolution. 

You like Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists simply WANT those clubs and writings and heros to be eternal and forever. It is a mere comic book reflection of our species own attributes and desires. A 13.8 billion year old universe with an estimated 2 TRILLION galaxies in it, and you want me to buy claims of humans being special? 

I hate to burst your bubble bud, but 5 billion years from now, long after our species goes extinct, after our planet dies and sun dies, neither Jesus, or Buddha, or Yahweh, or Vishnu or Allah, nor you are me, humans will not exist, nor will the universe itself give one shit about the fictions humans have concocted. 

What matters to me now, is while I am alive, what should matter to humans is not allowing their superstitions lead to bullshit war and needless death. 

There is no naked assertion on my part stating the fact that we know way more now, than the claims of antiquity.

[TheBeardedDude]

Steve would not understand the concept of witness testimony if it kicked him in the balls.

And a dozen witnesses were there to watch it, each with a different perspective. Some saying he instigated it, some saying he didn't, some saying it never happened, some saying that they aren't quite sure he was kicked in the balls and more like the inner thigh, while others maintain that it was staged and is part of the Reptilian conspiracy.

---

Still waiting on Steve's super secret set of contemporary sources for Jesus...

[RoadRunner79]

---

I would agree, that it would be incorrect, to engage in rational discourse, over that which is subjective.  However, I would disagree, that these things are unfalsifiable.  Hence I don't understand nor share your concern and confusion. [1] Perhaps you can clarify (or re-evaluate that they are unfalsifiable).  I also think that you may have confusion on what my faith consists of.  [2] My faith is in God, not about God.  I don't think that it is about taking a blind leap, and I don't advocate or think that people should have that kind of faith.  


If it is a subjective matter, then I would agree.   [3] However I don't think that your statements here make much sense when it is objective whether talking about religion or just one's worldview in general.  
Thanks for the very polite questions... I hope this helps.

---

Thanks for your response.  Out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying supernatural claims?

Regarding [1], my confusion lies in trying to establish the truth of supernatural claims via naturalistic tools such as human reason/logic.  Furthermore, if supernatural claims can be understood or falsified via naturalistic means, then are these claims really based in the supernatural? Is it more accurate to say that "supernatural" describes humanity's lack of knowledge about how reality works?  

In regards to [2], could you please clarify the following statement: "my faith is in God, not about God."

Regarding [3], if one's worldview/religious faith is falsifiable, then does that open the door to subjectivity?

Thanks for your polite answer, sir.

Sorry for the delay in my response (been busy, tired, and sick as well).
In regards to your points [1] I understand that there is the view of the word "supernatural" which basically equates to "unknown" (and it seems to me, this is how you are using it). That once the supernatural is known, it then becomes natural. This is not what I would normally mean by the term. I would view it more in this instance as transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up (and I understand it can be tricky to define precisely). However it seems to me, that if we are going to know about the supernatural in any reasonable way, that there would need to be a falsifiable event or reasoning, in which to do so.

[2] I mean, that I find reason to believe in God, and from that; I have faith in Him, and what He has proclaimed.

[3] I'm a little unsure exactly what you mean here. If you mean, that we can have disagreements or differing opinions; then I would agree. If you mean subjective by nature, in that it is dependent on and internal to the subject then I very much disagree (falsifiable would entail that it is objective).

Again sorry for the delay. I wanted to respond previously and wasn't able (and almost didn't now because of the pause in discussion). So I understand if you lost interest. But I appreciate your questions, and felt they deserved an answer. I don't know that we approach the issue from the same perspective though (perhaps because of a difference in understanding regarding the word "supernatural". And I'm not too concerned with the use of that term apart from a certain context. If someone comes to me, with a claim (supernatural or not), I'm going to ask why I should hold that view. And I think that something falsifiable should follow.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Thanks for your response.  Out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying supernatural claims?

Regarding [1], my confusion lies in trying to establish the truth of supernatural claims via naturalistic tools such as human reason/logic.  Furthermore, if supernatural claims can be understood or falsified via naturalistic means, then are these claims really based in the supernatural? Is it more accurate to say that "supernatural" describes humanity's lack of knowledge about how reality works?  

In regards to [2], could you please clarify the following statement: "my faith is in God, not about God."

Regarding [3], if one's worldview/religious faith is falsifiable, then does that open the door to subjectivity?

Thanks for your polite answer, sir.

Sorry for the delay in my response (been busy, tired, and sick as well).  
In regards to your points [1] I understand that there is the view of the word "supernatural" which basically equates to "unknown" (and it seems to me, this is how you are using it). That once the supernatural is known, it then becomes natural.  This is not what I would normally mean by the term.  I would view it more in this instance as transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up (and I understand it can be tricky to define precisely).  However it seems to me, that if we are going to know about the supernatural in any reasonable way, that there would need to be a falsifiable event or reasoning, in which to do so.

[2]  I mean, that I find reason to believe in God, and from that; I have faith in Him, and what He has proclaimed.

[3]  I'm a little unsure exactly what you mean here.  If you mean, that we can have disagreements or differing opinions; then I would agree.  If you mean subjective by nature, in that it is dependent on and internal to the subject then I very much disagree (falsifiable would entail that it is objective).

Again sorry for the delay.  I wanted to respond previously and wasn't able (and almost didn't now because of the pause in discussion).  So I understand if you lost interest.  But I appreciate your questions, and felt they deserved an answer.  I don't know that we approach the issue from the same perspective though (perhaps because of a difference in understanding regarding the word "supernatural".  And I'm not too concerned with the use of that term apart from a certain context.  If someone comes to me, with a claim (supernatural or not), I'm going to ask why I should hold that view.  And I think that something falsifiable should follow.

Thank you for your response, RoadRunner.

Regarding [1], out of curiosity, when you use supernatural as "transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up," do you mean transcending reality itself or transcending beyond the human mind's ability to perceive it? How does an individual reliably distinguish between the two? If something is beyond the human mind's ability to perceive, then is it somewhat presumptuous to conclude that it must be supernatural?

Regarding [2], I appreciate your clarification.  Am I correct in understanding that your belief in god is first established via reason, and then via your powers of reason, you have faith in your god? In other words, your belief in god was first established via logic and reason and was not first influenced by faith in any way? Out of curiosity, from a religious perspective, do you see anything wrong with first having faith in god, and then coming up with intelligent reasons for those beliefs?

Regarding [3], I meant that if different groups of people hold differing/conflicting/falsifiable views about objective reality, then does that suggest that people are subjectively interpreting that reality? If I may, from a religious perspective, how does one accurately separate objective truths and experiences from personal/subjective truths and experiences?   

Thanks again  for your gentlemanly response, RoadRunner.

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry for the delay in my response (been busy, tired, and sick as well).  
In regards to your points [1] I understand that there is the view of the word "supernatural" which basically equates to "unknown" (and it seems to me, this is how you are using it). That once the supernatural is known, it then becomes natural.  This is not what I would normally mean by the term.  I would view it more in this instance as transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up (and I understand it can be tricky to define precisely).  However it seems to me, that if we are going to know about the supernatural in any reasonable way, that there would need to be a falsifiable event or reasoning, in which to do so.

[2]  I mean, that I find reason to believe in God, and from that; I have faith in Him, and what He has proclaimed.

[3]  I'm a little unsure exactly what you mean here.  If you mean, that we can have disagreements or differing opinions; then I would agree.  If you mean subjective by nature, in that it is dependent on and internal to the subject then I very much disagree (falsifiable would entail that it is objective).

Again sorry for the delay.  I wanted to respond previously and wasn't able (and almost didn't now because of the pause in discussion).  So I understand if you lost interest.  But I appreciate your questions, and felt they deserved an answer.  I don't know that we approach the issue from the same perspective though (perhaps because of a difference in understanding regarding the word "supernatural".  And I'm not too concerned with the use of that term apart from a certain context.  If someone comes to me, with a claim (supernatural or not), I'm going to ask why I should hold that view.  And I think that something falsifiable should follow.

Thank you for your response, RoadRunner.

Regarding [1], out of curiosity, when you use supernatural as "transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up," do you mean transcending reality itself or transcending beyond the human mind's ability to perceive it? How does an individual reliably distinguish between the two? If something is beyond the human mind's ability to perceive, then is it somewhat presumptuous to conclude that it must be supernatural?

Regarding [2], I appreciate your clarification.  Am I correct in understanding that your belief in god is first established via reason, and then via your powers of reason, you have faith in your god? In other words, your belief in god was first established via logic and reason and was not first influenced by faith in any way? Out of curiosity, from a religious perspective, do you see anything wrong with first having faith in god, and then coming up with intelligent reasons for those beliefs?

Regarding [3], I meant that if different groups of people hold differing/conflicting/falsifiable views about objective reality, then does that suggest that people are subjectively interpreting that reality? If I may, from a religious perspective, how does one accurately separate objective truths and experiences from personal/subjective truths and experiences?   

Thanks again  for your gentlemanly response, RoadRunner.

[1] Neither;  what I mean by universe, is the universe that is ~14 Billion years old.  And I would agree, supernatural is not describing something based on our ability to understand it. 

[2] I would mostly agree, although I think that many things in the progression of learning are a combination of the two.  As to the order of things, I don't think it is that important.  There are many who have faith, but cannot give a reason for their faith.  Although I do think it is important to be able to give a reason why to the question of what you believe.  And I find this is true for a number of things (a good number of people don't really think things through and can give account for their beliefs... believer or not). 

[3]   Yes, and I think that we all subjectively interpret an objective reality.  Would this not be true for the atheist as well.  To separate objective truth  from subjective influences, I think that we need to go back and look at what we are basing it on (reasons and evidence).  And even then we may not always agree.  Just like in this conversation, I think there is a large bridge between where we are starting from.  I also think that we need to look to others as well, and their reasons for a similar or dissimilar view.  How would you answer this from your view?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Regarding [3], I meant that if different groups of people hold differing/conflicting/falsifiable views about objective reality, then does that suggest that people are subjectively interpreting that reality? If I may, from a religious perspective, how does one accurately separate objective truths and experiences from personal/subjective truths and experiences?   

Thanks again  for your gentlemanly response, RoadRunner.

[3]   Yes, and I think that we all subjectively interpret an objective reality.  Would this not be true for the atheist as well.  To separate objective truth  from subjective influences, I think that we need to go back and look at what we are basing it on (reasons and evidence).  And even then we may not always agree.  Just like in this conversation, I think there is a large bridge between where we are starting from.  I also think that we need to look to others as well, and their reasons for a similar or dissimilar view.  How would you answer this from your view?

I would say that to my knowledge, regardless of an individual's thought patterns and views, that currently, by itself, the human mind subjectively interprets objective reality.  Regarding your question, I'm afraid that I do not have an answer; however, I was interested in learning about what you have to say about the matter, and as you suggest, perhaps other members can contribute their insights and thoughts, provided that they are interested. 

I appreciate your response and your time and attention, sir.  Thanks.