(August 3, 2017 at 4:23 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 1:54 pm)SteveII Wrote:

---

I don't respond because you are disrespectful to God, I don't respond because you are disrespectful to me (and intentionally so). I'm not upset--just recognize what a waste of time answering you would be. It's a shame, perhaps you have some good points.

---

Or maybe you don't respond because you don't want to consider the ramifications of my points.

No, you're just acting like an asshole.

I still think you guys would do better to just confess to faith and leave the arguments to the argumentative. Oh wait, unless that includes you ..

(August 2, 2017 at 2:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: 3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

Why? It's a fact and there is no way around it. Arguing against the bible being the claim is like arguing against the holocaust.

Poor Stevie.  Not only does he not understand what evidence is but he does not even understand what a claim is.

I think he needs to move his sorry ass back to a church where he can surround himself with other benighted assholes who think exactly the way he does.

(August 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: Prong 1 - "Implausible claims require greater evidence to be believed than do more probable events".
Substituting "implausible" for the typical "extraordinary" is poisoning the well and question begging.

It's called defining a term, Steve.  You asked what the operant definition of extraordinary was, and when I supply an answer, you cry foul.  Heads you win, tails I lose, eh?  This is nothing but disingenious game playing.   So you can take your baseless claims of fallacy this and fallacy that and shove them where the sun don't shine.  You don't like my definition of extraordinary?  Then provide some  criticism of it, instead of bleating like a wounded sheep.

Regardless of your intentions, 'implausible' actually mean unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince and so it is exactly what I said it was. If we substitute the definition into your sentence: "unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince claims require greater evidence to be believed than do more probable events". 

Quote:

(August 3, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: Let's go with an example from Luke 5:17-39:

17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

The healing of the paralyzed man was extraordinary. However there was only one piece of evidence:the man walked away.

Helping yourself to some freebie facts I see.  The question puts the whole story in doubt.  You don't get to assume facts drawn from a story when the whole story's trustworthiness is contested.  That's stealing from a bank that is empty.

This is an example to see how the reasoning plays out and to illustrate that even the most interesting part of the example--where there can be the least amount of doubt of what happened does not contain extraordinary evidence. 

Quote:

(August 3, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote:  Is this what you mean by "greater evidence" (extraordinary)? If so, how so? I contend that any event only needs ordinary evidence (not greater in quantity or quality) because a simple probability equation can be made: is the probability of the event having a supernatural cause more than offset by the probability of seeing the effect had the event NOT had a supernatural cause. In other words, how probable was the man walking away had a miracle not occured? I contend that it is way lower. So, therefore the evidence of the man walking away is sufficient to reasonably believe in the supernatural cause--for someone present.

Except that you don't have any such evidence because the truth of the whole story is what's at issue.  You don't get to just assume facts not in evidence because your bias leads you there.  Is the story as a whole well evidenced?  Well, what's your evidence for the story.  Solely that someone long ago wrote down the story.  That's hardly evidence to speak of.  People wrote all sorts of such stories in that day and age, and you don't believe those tales anymore than I believe yours. And for what it matters, you can dispense with all the miracles of healing and walking on water and such rot.  There are plenty of other stories of people performing similar feats which you don't believe, so arguing the truth of those miracles simply degrades into a grand exercise in special pleading.  No, as is remarked, the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection miracle.  And that certainly qualifies as an implausible or extraordinary event.  And what's your evidence for that?  That someone in ancient times wrote a story about it.  The stories told about it aren't even consistent.  That's such poor evidence that it's laughable.

Obviously I did not reason this out forward. It is looking at the links of reason going backward from the subsequent steps below.

Regarding your special pleading charge: it is only special pleading if I can't articulate a difference between two claims/bodies of evidence. I realize it is convenient for you to leave it vague--sound more like you have a point. 

You can read back if you want my lists of evidence for the events described in the NT. The current topic is big enough for one post. 

Quote:

(August 3, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: Let's reason a step further. Say someone was there and wrote about it. Well, we have the same circumstances, evidence and assessment, so really there is no justification to reexamine the event itself. Instead we turn to the eyewitness's dependablity on relating the event. Is there anything that can be extraordinary about a single witness's dependability? I don't think so. We can increase the confidence we have in this eyewitness by seeing if there are other eyewitness accounts.

You have a problem Steve, it's called lack of evidence.  Arguing that a bunch of credulous stories from a time when such stories were accepted and passed around uncritically constitutes good evidence for a highly improbable event is just being foolish (or so incredibly biased that you can't see reason).  

You can read back if you want my lists of evidence for the events described in the NT. The current topic is big enough for one post. 

Quote:

(August 3, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: We can further increase the confidence by the existence of other similar (not the same) supernatural events--a pattern--related by several eyewitnesses.  The number of these accounts needed to meet some standard of 'dependable' will be very different between individuals and groups depending on the bias or preconceived beliefs about the supernatural. For instance, most of the world does not have a big problem believing in the supernatural, so their dependability threshold will be different than an atheist. If the threshold is subjective, then 'extraordinary' loses any meaning at all. 

Again, you're dipping from a well that is empty.  Using one unsupported story to back up another unsupported story is simply illegitimate.  You're right about one thing though.  The whole argument is about persuasion.  If you can't convince a neutral person on the strength of your so-called evidence, all you've got is a bunch of empty words.  And here we see you mounting an ad populum argument for the plausibility of the supernatural.  The problem is that the supernatural comes in distinct varieties.  The Hindu supernaturalist won't accept the Christian supernatural, and the Jewish supernaturalist won't accept the Buddhist's supernatural and so on.  You're trying to amalgamate a class which can't be amalgamated.  The only claims to neutrality which can be agreed to by mostly all parties are the findings of science.  And it's that standard of evidence which you're comparing the reliability of your campfire tales to in this argument.  So, no, the standard isn't subjective, just not well delineated.

The whole argument is that all it takes is ordinary evidence and ordinary reasoning to make a decision about an extraordinary claim. You have done nothing to show that there is flaw in these steps backward, nor justified the demand for extraordinary evidence (whether it be qualitative or quantitative). All you have done is assert that my evidence is not good enough--a subjective opinion--for which I had already illustrated that the assessment of evidence is very much affected by one's worldview in my example of the people of the world that believe in the supernatural. Science has nothing to do with any of this. 

Quote:

(August 3, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: It seems you might be going the route that any eyewitness testimony written in the first century is insufficient. If so, then in effect you are denying that any evidence is possible--because really, what other evidence could there be? Tell my why that isn't question begging. 

There are reasons which justify doubting stories of miracles from this time, or indeed from any time.  It isn't question begging if you don't just assume your conclusion but provide rational justification for your stance.,[1]  But once again we find you bleating like a sheep instead of providing actual argument.  No I don't find second-hand stories of the miraculous to be particularly credible.  What is considered evidence for the historical sciences is not on a par with that from the physical sciences, and while you may whine about this inequity, that is simply a fact. [2] That you have inferior evidence for your chosen beliefs is not my problem.  Not to mention it bespeaks of a double standard with you that you accept Christian miracle stories, but not the miracle stories of other religion which are just as well evidenced by second hand stories as your Christian tales. [3]

1. What are these a priori reasons for doubting miracles from any time? What is this justification you claim you have to avoid begging the question? 
2. I don't understand you point here.
3. There is no double standard or special pleading until you illustrate one. What other religion has evidenced miracles that you think applies to this charge? 

Quote:

(August 3, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: I did not attack Bayesian probability. You can see my post from page 2 with the equation here. Tell me why that is not way more appropriate to the discussion than your example.

It's appropriate to the discussion, it's just falsely described.  You don't have facts that are more probable if the claim is true than if it is false.  You have stories, and the evidence from the history of mankind is that people make up such stories.  So, no, the weight of the improbability of evidence (which you don't have) that is based on second hand stories does not outweigh the improbability of the event.  By the way, I consider falsely describing the application of Bayesian inference to be perilously close to an attack on it.  At the very least it is a terrible misrepresentation.  And yes you have mounted an attack upon the basic Bayesian reasoning behind the dismissal of your miracle stories with an assertion that the question of whether a specific miracle occurred is improbable is subjective.  Mister Agenda raised the objection that ECREE is well accounted for by Bayesian inference early on in the discussion, and you've spent your time since then tap dancing around it, mouthing bare assertions that its falseness has been "demonstrated", and crying foul whenever anyone attempts to answer your questions. Yes, standards of evidence vary, but in no standard are arbitrary miracles a probable event.  That's just intentionally trading on the vagueness of standards of evidence to effectively claim they don't exist.  And that's an example of the fallacy of the beard.  You want to conflate 'poorly defined' with 'not defined at all'.  If you have a problem with science being the gold standard for what is and is not probable, why don't you articulate your objection, instead of bleating "fallacy! fallacy!" at every turn.

Oh, and I see from your post on page 2 that you've tried to slip another bare assertion by us by trying to claim that the supernatural exists is part of our background knowledge.  You have a nonsensical concept of knowledge if you think that belief in the supernatural qualifies as 'knowledge'.  Bad Steve, Baaaad.

Tell me where I am going wrong. 

1. All you could ever have about any event (specifically the effect) in the first century is eyewitness evidence.
2. The dependability of the eyewitness is enhanced by context, additional eyewitnesses and other known facts resulting from the effect (in this case knowing a contemporary population agrees that the event happened). 
3. At some point, some combination of these and other reasons results in some people accepting the account of the effect. 
NOTE:  No probability has entered into anything yet.
4. If we accept the effect was witnessed, we can then begin to analyse the effect compared to the cause. The probability of the cause being a miracle is very low. But is the probability lower of seeing the effect if it wasn't a miracle (no other known natural cause of spontaneous whole-body nerve regeneration)?  I think so.
5. It is not conclusive proof, but we are justified to hold a belief the event was a miracle.

(August 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's called defining a term, Steve.  You asked what the operant definition of extraordinary was, and when I supply an answer, you cry foul.  Heads you win, tails I lose, eh?  This is nothing but disingenious game playing.   So you can take your baseless claims of fallacy this and fallacy that and shove them where the sun don't shine.  You don't like my definition of extraordinary?  Then provide some  criticism of it, instead of bleating like a wounded sheep.

Regardless of your intentions, 'implausible' actually mean unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince and so it is exactly what I said it was. If we substitute the definition into your sentence: "unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince claims require greater evidence to be believed than do more probable events". 

So why not stick with extra-ordinary then.  And how about we define it as something never before witnessed.  The fact that you think the resurrection was witnessed this one time -and presumably only this one time- cannot substantiate the genre when it is the first/only instance of what you've claimed.

If what you've claimed is not extraordinary, then point to the prior noncontroversial instantiation of the same phenomenon.  If it is the first/only of its kind, then it is certainly extraordinary and, for those of us not already inclined to expect such things, in need of extraordinary evidence.  Otherwise just go on about your business believing stuff you feel satisfied to believe while we go on rejecting it for being beyond the realm of what can be accepted without more than you've offered as justification.

(August 3, 2017 at 7:18 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 2, 2017 at 2:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: 3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

Why? It's a fact and there is no way around it. Arguing against the bible being the claim is like arguing against the holocaust.

Hmmm...what claim do Christians make that kind of defines the whole Christianity thing?
I know, I know...the Bible!

---

(August 3, 2017 at 8:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regardless of your intentions, 'implausible' actually mean unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince and so it is exactly what I said it was. If we substitute the definition into your sentence: "unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince claims require greater evidence to be believed than do more probable events". 

So why not stick with extra-ordinary then.  And how about we define it as something never before witnessed.  The fact that you think the resurrection was witnessed this one time -and presumably only this one time- cannot substantiate the genre when it is the first/only instance of what you've claimed.

If what you've claimed is not extraordinary, then point to the prior noncontroversial instantiation of the same phenomenon.  If it is the first/only of its kind, then it is certainly extraordinary and, for those of us not already inclined to expect such things, in need of extraordinary evidence.  Otherwise just go on about your business believing stuff you feel satisfied to believe while we go on rejecting it for being beyond the realm of what can be accepted without more than you've offered as justification.

I'm all for calling the events of the NT extraordinary. Later in the post I explain why I think there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence -- just evidence.

(August 3, 2017 at 1:57 pm)Whateverist Wrote: [...] Steve, why is it so important to you that atheists think your justifications for you belief have merit?  Is it about fulfilling your subscription quota or do our voices substitute for ones you'd be arguing with internally without us?

dingdingdingding, we have a winnah!

I have always regarded evangelism of any stripe, atheist included, as a mark of insecurity.

(August 3, 2017 at 2:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Useless apologetic assholes think it was real.

Others, not so much.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/q_linnemann.pdf

Quote:Imagine flying to a non-existent island on an airplane that has not yet been invented.
Even if this impossible trip were to take place during the thirteenth month of the year, it
would not be as fantastic as the tale, recently christened as scientific certainty by some NT
scholars, concerning the so-called lost gospel Q and the earliest Church.

No, Q is merely the invention of certain 19th century scholars who realized that the gospel tale they were told were total bullshit and needed some help.  So they invented some.  In much the same way as early xtian liars invented your fucking godboy.

Give it up, lad.

Same goes for L and M

---

(August 3, 2017 at 4:23 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 1:54 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't respond because you are disrespectful to God, I don't respond because you are disrespectful to me (and intentionally so). I'm not upset--just recognize what a waste of time answering you would be. It's a shame, perhaps you have some good points.

Or maybe you don't respond because you don't want to consider the ramifications of my points.

Awe Gent said mean things to steve so he takes his ball and runs home .

---

(August 3, 2017 at 8:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regardless of your intentions, 'implausible' actually mean unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince and so it is exactly what I said it was. If we substitute the definition into your sentence: "unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince claims require greater evidence to be believed than do more probable events". 

So why not stick with extra-ordinary then.  And how about we define it as something never before witnessed.  The fact that you think the resurrection was witnessed this one time -and presumably only this one time- cannot substantiate the genre when it is the first/only instance of what you've claimed.

If what you've claimed is not extraordinary, then point to the prior noncontroversial instantiation of the same phenomenon.  If it is the first/only of its kind, then it is certainly extraordinary and, for those of us not already inclined to expect such things, in need of extraordinary evidence.  Otherwise just go on about your business believing stuff you feel satisfied to believe while we go on rejecting it for being beyond the realm of what can be accepted without more than you've offered as justification.

To bad for steve it's anything but no matter how much he screams "begging the question"

(August 3, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 4:23 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Or maybe you don't respond because you don't want to consider the ramifications of my points.

No, you're just acting like an asshole.

Projecting again? Dude, you really need to get that checked out, I can't imagine how badly you must abuse those close to you.