(August 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm)Oh SteveII Wrote:

(July 31, 2017 at 7:36 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And what's the believer's claim? First, there is a god, an entity that sits outside of the Universe and that is capable of creating Universes. My first knee jerk reaction is, of course, How would you know about that?! How did that information reach you? From where did that information come? How was it conveyed?
What sort of evidence do you expect to provide to answer these questions?
For all these knee jerk questions, the believer, at best, can tell me something along the lines of "divine inspiration". That's covering up a plot-hole with another hole. How do you know it's divine inspiration and not imagination? How can you distinguish the two?
Some will go further and point to the absence of knowledge concerning the origin of the Universe and then present their solution, as if it doesn't have to answer those first questions. Many, many, many alternatives can be presented for the origin of the Universe... How to discern the correct one?

Even without these questions answered - questions that pertain only to the information conveyed to you concerning this god - I can go to questions about the god itself. What is it? How does it generate Universes? Does it control the Universes it creates? Does it have companion gods? How can I interact with it?
None of these is satisfactorily answered by any religion.
The last question is asking about evidence... how can I gather my own evidence about this entity, without having to resort to you as a gateway? I don't even want you to give me evidence for that entity, I want to do it myself. Actually, I just want to know how to do it myself. Once that mechanism is understood and considered trustworthy, then I can accept your interactions with said deity.

Is this taken care of?
Of course not!!
Still, you then go on to claim stuff about a person who lived 2000 years ago. Centuries after my knee jerk reaction failed to be answered. Even without it being answered, tons of people became believers in some form or other of deity.
Having a population of believers, it's not a stretch to make them believe in something further about the same deity they already believe in... and thus evolve the religion.

First, I think if there is a God you can reasonably assume that at some point he would reveal himself. Not just say "hey, I'm here" but to give some sort of reason or purpose for the existence we are experiencing. I think this is done in a several ways in this specific order:

1. Natural Theology (theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation)
2. Revealed Theology (theology based on what God has directly revealed about himself). The OT is full of interactions from which we can derive information.
3. Appearing in the Person of Christ. These are the events of the gospels--resulting in atonement for sin which resulted in the possibility of a one-on-one relationship with God. 
4. Personal Witness. The final revelation of God is within the context of the personal relationship promised in the NT. 

The four points build on the previous and become more focused. That is why the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

Second, I don't think that the doctrine of divine inspiration (God guiding the mind of the writer) is necessary here. All of the above could be accomplished without it. Using inspiration in an argument is just question begging. Rather it is a useful doctrine to discuss after the basics are already believed/established.

So...you're using your book to answer questions about your book, lol.  Got it.

(August 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: First, I think if there is a God you can reasonably assume that at some point he would reveal himself. Not just say "hey, I'm here" but to give some sort of reason or purpose for the existence we are experiencing. I think this is done in a several ways in this specific order:

1. Natural Theology (theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation)
2. Revealed Theology (theology based on what God has directly revealed about himself). The OT is full of interactions from which we can derive information.
3. Appearing in the Person of Christ. These are the events of the gospels--resulting in atonement for sin which resulted in the possibility of a one-on-one relationship with God. 
4. Personal Witness. The final revelation of God is within the context of the personal relationship promised in the NT. 

The four points build on the previous and become more focused. That is why the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

Second, I don't think that the doctrine of divine inspiration (God guiding the mind of the writer) is necessary here. All of the above could be accomplished without it. Using inspiration in an argument is just question begging. Rather it is a useful doctrine to discuss after the basics are already believed/established.

1. This is not knowledge of god, as nothing that is observed is only attributable to a god.
2. Nothing is revealed except that people believed.
3. Unsubstantiated stories.
4. Unfalsifiable hearsay.

(August 1, 2017 at 2:34 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(August 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: First, I think if there is a God you can reasonably assume that at some point he would reveal himself. Not just say "hey, I'm here" but to give some sort of reason or purpose for the existence we are experiencing. I think this is done in a several ways in this specific order:

1. Natural Theology (theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation)
2. Revealed Theology (theology based on what God has directly revealed about himself). The OT is full of interactions from which we can derive information.
3. Appearing in the Person of Christ. These are the events of the gospels--resulting in atonement for sin which resulted in the possibility of a one-on-one relationship with God. 
4. Personal Witness. The final revelation of God is within the context of the personal relationship promised in the NT. 

The four points build on the previous and become more focused. That is why the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

Second, I don't think that the doctrine of divine inspiration (God guiding the mind of the writer) is necessary here. All of the above could be accomplished without it. Using inspiration in an argument is just question begging. Rather it is a useful doctrine to discuss after the basics are already believed/established.

1. This is not knowledge of god, as nothing that is observed is only attributable to a god.
2. Nothing is revealed except that people believed.
3. Unsubstantiated stories.
4. Unfalsifiable hearsay.

So true, but Steve doesn't see it:

Natural theology trumped by nature. Shit happens naturally, we have evidence it does, nothing beyond solar demonstrated.
OT full of immoral actions of a divine thug, we are morally superior to him. my 'evidence' that god is manmade and the stories are human invention.
NT stories and claims about the actual word of Jesus. Poorly evidenced. Believed by many then and now for sure, but nothing more.
Personal revelation, useless. So is it for fairies, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot etc;

Steve finds all of this compelling; I guess he thinks we are wilfully ignorant or tools of deception.

I hope he is honest enough to see I am neither of these.

Just unimpressed and unconvinced.

(August 1, 2017 at 4:53 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 31, 2017 at 9:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. My point is that even a photo of you and Angelina is not extraordinary. It is just a photo--to which we can apply the question--is the unlikely probability of Poc having lunch with Angelina overcome by the probability of seeing a picture of them together if it did not happen? Even the most improbably events can be compared by examining ordinary evidence in this way. 

You forget that you already know who Angeline Jolie is. You've seen her. You know what to expect. You know she's a human being much like us; you know what her face looks like.
A photo of me having dinner with her is extraordinary in the sense of... what are the odds of that dinner happening? [1] What would be required for me to have such a photo?
Of all the photos that I have ever taken with my face on them... not a single one has Angelina. What are the odds that I'd show up with one that does?

I could go even more extraordinary by claiming I had dinner with a fairy called Tinker Bell. Now what would you consider evidence enough of my claim?
This claim is not only that I had dinner with Tink, but also that Tink is a fairy.

(July 31, 2017 at 9:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: The rest of your example about the lunch/dinner/sister simply involves whether I take your word for it. I asked for no evidence. If I had a thousand dollar bet on whether you had dinner with your sister, I would ask you for some very ordinary evidence and apply the very same reasoning above. Same situation for you, but my interest has changed.

The bet is an interesting addition.
Not only because it changes your requirements to believe me, but also... why is there a bet in the first place?

Let's say you have a standing bet on your life (not some measly thousand dollars) that I didn't have dinner with the fairy Tinker Bell. At what sort of evidence would you accept that the terms of the bet have been met and give your life away?
I'm sure a mere photo would not be enough. Even a video could be edited, so you shouldn't take it as sufficient, even if some fairy magic was shown in the video.
What, short of producing Tinker Bell for you to examine directly and without any middlemen, would you consider enough evidence that Tinker Bell is a fairy and I had dinner with her?
(gotta tap that fairy tail!)

1. But you are just talking about probability assessments. Way back in the OP and on page 2, I mentioned that even an improbable event on one side can be more than counterbalanced by the even lower probability that you would have the evidence (a photo in this example) if the event had not happened (probability theory). There is nothing extraordinary about the photo. The photo is ordinary evidence because there are billions of photos taken each day. We did not demand nor did you offer more than ordinary proof for your dinner. 

As it applies to my NT arguments, evidence that we would accept for any historical event should be accepted for the events that the gospels describe (applying the probability theory I mentioned above). A demand for better or more (what I take "extraordinary" in the title of this thread to mean) evidence has no power that can render what we do have as 'not evidence'. This last sentence is core to my argument. Therefore the phrase "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence" is false. 

Regarding Tinkerbell, I would not require just one piece of evidence. I would require at least 27. Did hundreds of people see you both together and act on that knowledge (like tell their family at the time)? I would also have to consider some background evidence, where she was first mentioned? Who else might have encountered her? Does she have any effect on her environment that we can add to the pile? How about considering if people intuitively believe in the possibility of Tinkerbells--I guess that might add to the pile of evidence too.  Lastly, did she leave any message that can be examined (did she speak of things that were practical, new, compelling, hopeful, insightful)? I would consider all these things evidence. However, your analogy breaks down on betting my life on it. I would never have an inner experience/relationship with her that assured me she was real so would never rise to the level of betting my life on it.

(August 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: ... the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

I'm not so sure about that. I would say that what we have is sufficient but there is always more to know.

(August 1, 2017 at 3:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regarding Tinkerbell, I would not require just one piece of evidence. I would require at least 27. Did hundreds of people see you both together and act on that knowledge (like tell their family at the time)?

That's not evidence, that's an ad pop argument.

Quote:I would also have to consider some background evidence, where she was first mentioned? Who else might have encountered her?

Same as jesus, first mentioned in a fairytale, no ones ever encountered her.

Quote:Does she have any effect on her environment that we can add to the pile?

Hey, this is actually a good one...does the presence of jesus increase rainfall, for example?  Nope.

Quote:How about considering if people intuitively believe in the possibility of Tinkerbells--I guess that might add to the pile of evidence too.

This is another veiled ad pop..still not evidence.

Quote: Lastly, did she leave any message that can be examined (did she speak of things that were practical, new, compelling, hopeful, insightful)? I would consider all these things evidence.

aaaaand this is an appeal to tradition.

So, what have we learned?  That you have about a 25% chance of accurately identifying what is and is not evidence, ofc, that might have been pure chance...and having done so, that category is null.

Quote:I would never have an inner experience/relationship with her that assured me she was real so would never rise to the level of betting my life on it.

Plenty of people claim to have an inner experience of fairies.  Most of them christians...I'm just saying, never say never. Jesus will die if no one believes in him - so keep clapping.

(August 1, 2017 at 2:34 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(August 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Natural Theology (theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation)
2. Revealed Theology (theology based on what God has directly revealed about himself). The OT is full of interactions from which we can derive information.
3. Appearing in the Person of Christ. These are the events of the gospels--resulting in atonement for sin which resulted in the possibility of a one-on-one relationship with God. 
4. Personal Witness. The final revelation of God is within the context of the personal relationship promised in the NT.

1. This is not knowledge of god, as nothing that is observed is only attributable to a god.
2. Nothing is revealed except that people believed.
3. Unsubstantiated stories.
4. Unfalsifiable hearsay.

1. Only God satisfies the 5W.
2. Provides historical context.
3. Gives reliable accounts.
4. Properly basic sensus divinitatis.

(August 1, 2017 at 11:57 am)Khemikal Wrote: 30 pages in, and still all we have to discuss is magic book?  That's not extraordinary evidence, it;s not even ordinary evidence..it's remains as it always has been, no evidence.

That's right. The book is the claim, not the evidence.

There's a term for logic that asserts that the claim is the evidence; it's called circular reasoning.

(August 1, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The book is the claim, not the evidence.

(throws bullshit flag) That's a dumb meaningless meme. You could say that about any document ever produced, including the Declaration of Independence or Napoleon's letters to Josephine.

(August 1, 2017 at 5:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 1, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The book is the claim, not the evidence.

(throws bullshit flag) You could say that about any document ever produced, including the Declaration of Independence or Napoleon's letters to Josephine.

When a book contains talking snakes as opposed to a rational writ of reasonable ideals, I would beg to realize that your bullshit flag is quite ablaze with delusion.