The "disciples" were later additions to the story in order to give "jesus" the mandatory Greek chorus for the day.

Their job seems to be to say "oh wow! Neat shit, lord." When he does one of his magic tricks. And then, to be astonished when he fucking does it again.

These clowns have the retention capability of gnats.

They make Robin Hood's "Merry Men" look like rocket scientists in comparison!

(February 28, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 10:40 am)discipulus Wrote: You fail to take into account the background information accompanying the accounts of Christ's miracles.

Christ did not do one miracle and then say believe in Me. He did not do two miracles and say believe in Me. Or three or four.

I can't believe I have to point this out to you, but you've presented no reason to believe that Jesus did any miracles at all. I'm aware it claims so in the book that's all about him, but "being written in a book" is not evidence.

Quote:If I were a Jew living at that time and witnessed what Jesus was doing I could not justify not believing who He said He was.

Oh yes you could, and actually, you should. Now, I fully grant you that if you were alive and saw Jesus performing a supposed miracle, depending on the given example you'd have reason to believe you'd seen something extraordinary, but at that point you wouldn't have any reason to presume that the source of this was divine. Jesus could have been lying (maybe he was Satan in disguise!) or mistaken about the source of his power. You'd have to do further tests to know for sure.

Assumptions make an ass out of u, as they say. Stop making them in favor of things you want to be true.

Quote:With each miracle, the probability of it all happening via some naturalisitc explanation diminishes. Assuming the accounts are true it is more probable that the explanation for these occurrances is that Christ was actually who He said He was.

Not really; the best you could say is that it couldn't yet be accounted for by naturalistic means. I will fully grant that it would be okay to say that current naturalistic observations cannot explain Jesus' miracles, but that's a far cry from saying it's impossible naturally. See, I'm trying to avoid making unjustified leaps of logic so that I don't land in an incorrect conclusion, and I think I can clear up why with a comparison:

If a preacher for Thor came to see you one day and performed an identical set of miracles to the ones Jesus is claimed to have performed, and told you that he gained his power from the Norse gods, would you then conclude that the Norse gods are real and yours is not?

No? Why is that? Is it because you can see a distinction between the action, and the cause or source of that action?

That's what I would call step one on the investigative process for miracle claims.

Quote:Wanting evidence for claims of divinity is not wrong. It is right. But denying what is obvious is a matter of the will.

It isn't obvious to any of us: none of us were Jews that witnessed Jesus do anything, and so your reasoning falls on its face right away. Claiming that those of us here today are unjustified in disbelieving on those grounds would be ridiculous.

Your reasoning is clouded by your postmodernistic worldview.

You, like many others who have come to adopt the postmodern way of viewing reality, rule out the supernatural (miracles etc.) a priori.

IOW, when you read a historical account about Jesus performing miracles, you dismiss it as fiction before you even investigate to see if the account is credible.

Barring a precommitment to naturalism, you have no justifiable reason for doing so.

You essentially argue that miracles can't happen and when asked why, you respond: because all that exists owes its existence to natural forces acting on matter (naturalism). I would then ask: how do you know this? To which you would respond: "that is all that we can detect empirically.

Do you understand why this reasoning is fallacious?

How do we test miracle claims?

(February 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm)discipulus Wrote: Your reasoning is clouded by your postmodernistic worldview.

You, like many others who have come to adopt the postmodern way of viewing reality, rule out the supernatural (miracles etc.) a priori.

IOW, when you read a historical account about Jesus performing miracles, you dismiss it as fiction before you even investigate to see if the account is credible.

Barring a precommitment to naturalism, you have no justifiable reason for doing so.

You essentially argue that miracles can't happen and when asked why, you respond: because all that exists owes its existence to natural forces acting on matter (naturalism). I would then ask: how do you know this? To which you would respond: "that is all that we can detect empirically.

Do you understand why this reasoning is fallacious?

You could say the same about your rejection of the Hindu Vedas. You don't, because you engage in special pleading.

(February 28, 2014 at 3:06 pm)truthBtold Wrote: How do we test miracle claims?

I think I may start a separate thread on miracles. It is something I think needs to be addressed.

If I do, I will address that question.

(February 28, 2014 at 3:22 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 3:06 pm)truthBtold Wrote: How do we test miracle claims?

I think I may start a separate thread on miracles. It is something I think needs to be addressed.

If I do, I will address that question.

Good. I will be awaiting

(February 28, 2014 at 3:20 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm)discipulus Wrote: Your reasoning is clouded by your postmodernistic worldview.

You, like many others who have come to adopt the postmodern way of viewing reality, rule out the supernatural (miracles etc.) a priori.

IOW, when you read a historical account about Jesus performing miracles, you dismiss it as fiction before you even investigate to see if the account is credible.

Barring a precommitment to naturalism, you have no justifiable reason for doing so.

You essentially argue that miracles can't happen and when asked why, you respond: because all that exists owes its existence to natural forces acting on matter (naturalism). I would then ask: how do you know this? To which you would respond: "that is all that we can detect empirically.

Do you understand why this reasoning is fallacious?

You could say the same about your rejection of the Hindu Vedas. You don't, because you engage in special pleading.

If someone said the Hindu Vedas were not credible because they contain accounts of miraculous events and that miraculous events are not possible because they cannot be empirically verified then they would be no less guilty of fallacious reasoning.

(February 28, 2014 at 3:24 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 3:20 pm)rasetsu Wrote: You could say the same about your rejection of the Hindu Vedas. You don't, because you engage in special pleading.

If someone said the Hindu Vedas were not credible because they contain accounts of miraculous events and that miraculous events are not possible because they cannot be empirically verified then they would be no less guilty of fallacious reasoning.

We were talking about you, not some anonymous third party. Do you reject the Vedas?

(February 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm)discipulus Wrote: Your reasoning is clouded by your postmodernistic worldview.

You, like many others who have come to adopt the postmodern way of viewing reality, rule out the supernatural (miracles etc.) a priori.
...
Do you understand why this reasoning is fallacious?

The logical fallacies you're committing are Shifting the Burden of Proof, Special Pleading (see Rasetsu's posts) and Tu Quoque.

First of all, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that miracles happen or that there is some sort of as yet undetected supernatural force out there. Your post accusing us of prematurely rejecting miracle claims out of a bias of naturalism is essentially saying "well, how do you know they DIDN'T happen?" This is not a valid challenge as it's an Argument from Ignorance.

In addition to having the burden of proof, your burden is extraordinary, scaling with the extraordinary nature of your claims.

From the moment we wake to the moment we go to sleep, the natural world is all we experience. There are those who claim otherwise but their claims have all either not been proven true or proven not to be true. Similarly, all historic claims of the supernatural that have since come to be understood have been replaced with natural explanations. We now know why wind blows, lightning strikes and the seas churn. At one time, gods or spirits were thought to be behind these events. As we understand our universe more, the more these gods are standing in the unemployment line, having been replaced with understood phenomena.

But you might say, "ah but in this case, it's true". This is where you get into the fallacy of special pleading. The "assumption of naturalism" that you deride is the very same assumption that YOU have once we move outside your favorite brand of woo. This can be seen in how we all evaluate claims in every other area of our lives outside of our religious ideology.

If I told you I had lunch with my wife, it's a mundane claim you'd accept with my testimony alone, assuming a lack of contrary evidence.

If I told you I had lunch with President Obama today, it's a fantastic claim you'd accept only with strong evidence, including video footage or news articles.

If I told you I had lunch with my dead father, passed away and cremated 10 years ago, and his body had reconstituted itself and he's much better now, you'd dismiss me as crazy or a liar. If I had video footage or hundreds of witnesses combined with credible news sources, you'd still be within the bounds of rational skepticism to suspect a hoax of some kind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is how everyone operates in day to day life, religious faith being the only exception. It is not some stubborn preconception of naturalism at work here but consistently following logical inquiry in all areas and to all claims.

Finally, you've committed a projection or Tu Quoque (i.e. a "no, YOU!" argument). You want to justify your faith by claiming we have faith in science and the natural order of the universe. By trying to muddy the waters in this way, you're trying to in effect go for a "wash". As in, "oh well, we both have faith so I guess we see things differently." This is not a valid defense of your views. Just because "aw, c'mon, everybody does it" doesn't mean it's right. Moms and dads know this when children use this defense.

Your Tu Quoque is also a false comparison. Skepticism is not an agenda. Science is not a religion. Demanding evidence for supernatural claims is not a bias.

I'm a dick head. In the wrong thread.

These Christians all look the same.