(March 20, 2017 at 5:24 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Sure, you can document an actual flesh and blood individual.  Maybe there was a rabbi named Jesus who is credited with starting the xtian cult.  You could document that much, though I don't know and don't care how well that has been done.  What you can't do is document the supernatural, wooey claims made for that individual whether actual or not.  A documented natural human being doesn't get you to god or any of those extraordinary claims.

By what criteria do you decide which parts of the narrative to accept and which to reject? Is there any objective standard for what makes something extraordinary? A peasant girl named Joan leading the French army to victory. That sounds extraordinary too.

---

(March 20, 2017 at 5:28 pm)Whateverist Wrote: *Ninja kudos to Mr Agenda.  Hadn't read beyond the post I quoted in my last post before I echoed your take.

---

(March 20, 2017 at 5:25 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Sounds like you've already decided that miracles cannot happen so you edit out those parts. Isn't that kind of like the file-drawer effect?

I assume we'd both expect a high degree of vetting to accept such claims.  We're not just talking about whether or not somebody did something we all understand how to do ourselves.  It is hard to imagine how one would begin to show conclusively that so-and-so accomplished a 'miracle' by completely non-natural means.

So people ask for evidence of a miracle, I present presumably historical materials attesting to a miracle, and they will not accept it because it describes a miracle. Sounds like special pleading and the original request was disingenuous.

(March 20, 2017 at 5:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 20, 2017 at 5:24 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Sure, you can document an actual flesh and blood individual.  Maybe there was a rabbi named Jesus who is credited with starting the xtian cult.  You could document that much, though I don't know and don't care how well that has been done.  What you can't do is document the supernatural, wooey claims made for that individual whether actual or not.  A documented natural human being doesn't get you to god or any of those extraordinary claims.

By what criteria do you decide which parts of the narrative to accept and which to reject? Is there any objective standard for what makes something extraordinary? A peasant girl named Joan leading the French army to victory. That sounds extraordinary too.

---

(March 20, 2017 at 5:28 pm)Whateverist Wrote: *Ninja kudos to Mr Agenda.  Hadn't read beyond the post I quoted in my last post before I echoed your take.

---

I assume we'd both expect a high degree of vetting to accept such claims.  We're not just talking about whether or not somebody did something we all understand how to do ourselves.  It is hard to imagine how one would begin to show conclusively that so-and-so accomplished a 'miracle' by completely non-natural means.

So people ask for evidence of a miracle, I present presumably historical materials attesting to a miracle, and they will not accept it because it describes a miracle. Sounds like special pleading and the original request was disingenuous.

To ask that we accept on hearsay the claim that something seemingly impossible has happened asks us to believe what is unimaginable.  I decline.  The extraordinary requires more than the ordinary and it just isn't very difficult to determine what is extraordinary.  If it involves something never before documented and a process not understood, it's extraordinary and requires special vetting.  But for yourself of course you may be as tight or loose as suits you.

(March 20, 2017 at 6:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote: To ask that we accept on hearsay the claim that something seemingly impossible has happened asks us to believe what is unimaginable.  I decline.  The extraordinary requires more than the ordinary and it just isn't very difficult to determine what is extraordinary.  If it involves something never before documented and a process not understood, it's extraordinary and requires special vetting.  But for yourself of course you may be as tight or loose as suits you.

I can accept the idea that people require different degrees of proof. In my own case, no single item is conclusive or even particularly persuasive. It is the cumulative case, that I feel warrants belief. At the same time, it puts the lie to the idea that "no" evidence has been provided; but rather, just not enough to suit people who are willing to raise the bar if the conclusion doesn't match their preconceptions about how the world should work.

But how else can we ever judge a claim except by the conceptions we've acquired up to that point? For a claim that by definition for a miracle is impossible by all prior understandings, it is very hard to say in advance what the standard should be. All I'm sure of is that connecting the dots for the natural aspects of the claim will in no way bridge the way to vouchsafing the part which is alleged to be 'miraculous'.

(March 20, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 20, 2017 at 6:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote: To ask that we accept on hearsay the claim that something seemingly impossible has happened asks us to believe what is unimaginable.  I decline.  The extraordinary requires more than the ordinary and it just isn't very difficult to determine what is extraordinary.  If it involves something never before documented and a process not understood, it's extraordinary and requires special vetting.  But for yourself of course you may be as tight or loose as suits you.

I can accept the idea that people require different degrees of proof. In my own case, no single item is conclusive or even particularly persuasive. It is the cumulative case, that I feel warrants belief. At the same time, it puts the lie to the idea that "no" evidence has been provided; but rather, just not enough to suit people who are willing to raise the bar if the conclusion doesn't match their preconceptions about how the world should work.

A bunch of bad evidence =/= persuasive evidence.

And you are correct, the statement that there is "no evidence" is false. Only bad or insufficient evidence.

It is not that we are raising the bar. It is that you are lowering yours. You would not accept the same level of evidence for other religions than yours.

(March 20, 2017 at 5:24 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(March 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. One significant thing you seem to be overlooking is that without Jesus, there are no Christians. There is ample evidence of Christians and their beliefs outside the NT:
   A. EVIDENCE: There were churches in many major cities stretching from Palestine to Rome before Paul started to write his letters to them around 50ad. Not only were there churches, but they believed in the major events outlined in the gospels prior to the gospels and Paul's letters. 
   B. EVIDENCE: Tacitus referred to the large community of Christians in Rome regarding the events of 64AD
   C. EVIDENCE: Thallus discussed the crucifixion of Jesus around 52AD. His work is lost but was referenced by Julius Africanus in 221AD.
   D. EVIDENCE: Pliny the Younger asked Emperor Trajan in 112 on how to deal with the Christians. 
   E. EVIDENCE: Despite your attempt to exclude, Josephus was a historian writing mainly about the political struggle of the Jews with Rome for which Jesus was not an important figure (yet). Since Jesus was not of interest to Josephus' overall goal, his mention is important in confirming he existed. 
   F. EVIDENCE: Later the Talmud calls Jesus a sorcerer and that his power comes from evil spirits--which 1) recognizes Jesus exists and 2) does not deny the miracles--only their source

You may not like the evidence, but there is large amounts of evidence that points to the fact that Jesus not only walked the earth, but people genuinely believed he was the Son of God that came to make possible a relationship with God. 

2. The Christian community had decided long before 329 what books were to be regarded as authority. The way you summarize it is intentional because you think it strengthens your argument. However, it ignores actual facts.

3. The Jews would disagree. Ask them--they wrote it. 

4. Your complaint seems to be with people. 
 
5. Nope. It would be abhorrent to a Jew to propose (let alone find followers for) a new religion that deifies someone in order to play some long-game where any goals would not be achieved for generations. Your conspiracy theory is nonsense. 

6. Talk about no evidence. 

7. You cannot get around the fact that there is ample evidence that people believed the claims of Jesus immediately following his death--even prior to them being written down in the Gospels. You need to come up with a theory that accounts for all the evidence that is more plausible than what it appears to be. You have not. 

8. Your objection to the whole story seems to be that miracles do not happen. Well, if you object to evidence that miracles happen by saying we can't accept that because miracles don't happen, you are just arguing in a circle.

Sure, you can document an actual flesh and blood individual.  Maybe there was a rabbi named Jesus who is credited with starting the xtian cult.  You could document that much, though I don't know and don't care how well that has been done.  What you can't do is document the supernatural, wooey claims made for that individual whether actual or not.  A documented natural human being doesn't get you to god or any of those extraordinary claims.

So, in that case you need a theory that fits all the evidence and explains why people believed falsely that Jesus was God. When I say 'believed', I mean eyewitnesses believed thoroughly with all their heart. If you don't have such an evidenced-based theory, it seems then you are claiming that because there is no supernatural, then the NT can't be evidence of the supernatural--which is arguing in a circle.

---

(March 20, 2017 at 9:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(March 20, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I can accept the idea that people require different degrees of proof. In my own case, no single item is conclusive or even particularly persuasive. It is the cumulative case, that I feel warrants belief. At the same time, it puts the lie to the idea that "no" evidence has been provided; but rather, just not enough to suit people who are willing to raise the bar if the conclusion doesn't match their preconceptions about how the world should work.

A bunch of bad evidence =/= persuasive evidence.

And you are correct, the statement that there is "no evidence" is false. Only bad or insufficient evidence.

It is not that we are raising the bar. It is that you are lowering yours. You would not accept the same level of evidence for other religions than yours.

I don't think is a matter of lowering the bar. I think if most people are pre-disposed to think that the supernatural exists, then the Christian version is the best evidenced religion by far. This assessment is supported by the fact that Christianity grows by many millions of adult conversions across the world each year whereas other religions do not.

(March 20, 2017 at 8:33 pm)Whateverist Wrote: But how else can we ever judge a claim except by the conceptions we've acquired up to that point?  For a claim that by definition for a miracle is impossible by all prior understandings, it is very hard to say in advance what the standard should be.  All I'm sure of is that connecting the dots for the natural aspects of the claim will in no way bridge the way to vouchsafing the part which is alleged to be 'miraculous'.

Human beings are not born naturalists; but rather, are instinctively aware of and attuned to the ineffable, sublime, and uncanny. My challenge is to your assumption that "a miracle is impossible by all prior understandings." I submit to you that exclusion of the miraculous is the result of cultivating a mindset against it.

The Bible is essentially a collection of very weak evidence. Sure, the Bible has evidence, and I will agree that theists have presented this evidence. However, when I say that the Bible has no evidence, I mean no evidence that substantiates the claims of Christianity. The only evidence we have for divine happenings are all inadequate in proving Christianity, and no amount of poor evidence eventually accumulates into valid evidence.

(March 20, 2017 at 11:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 20, 2017 at 8:33 pm)Whateverist Wrote: But how else can we ever judge a claim except by the conceptions we've acquired up to that point?  For a claim that by definition for a miracle is impossible by all prior understandings, it is very hard to say in advance what the standard should be.  All I'm sure of is that connecting the dots for the natural aspects of the claim will in no way bridge the way to vouchsafing the part which is alleged to be 'miraculous'.

Human beings are not born naturalists; but rather, are instinctively aware of and attuned to the ineffable, sublime, and uncanny. My challenge is to your assumption that  "a miracle is impossible by all prior understandings." I submit to you that exclusion of the miraculous is the result of cultivating a mindset against it.

That's probably true about the mindset.  But I think you scrambled what I said about a miracle.  Isn't a miracle something for for which we have no natural explanation?  That was my meaning.  Admittedly I'm aware of no god or genie who is able to do such things by magic.  But I wasn't saying it's impossible for such a thing to exist.  I don't pretend to know that, I merely don't find any reason to believe it.

(March 20, 2017 at 12:57 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Buddhism is a spin off of Hinduism.

That's an amazing fact considering that Theravada buddhism is c800 years older than hinduism. They have similar roots, yet wildly diverging paths (buddhism abandoned the local gods, hinduism amalgamated them into a single massive pantheon).