(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 8, 2014 at 11:00 am)discipulus Wrote: Your response in no way either undercuts or rebuts my assertion that certainty is an impossible standard to meet and therefore an unreasonable expectation to have regarding the demonstration of the existence of God.

Nor was it intended to since I would never argue that claim. But unless I misunderstood your assertion that "certainty is an impossible standard to meet which actually serves to support my argument," in no way does our fallibility lead credence to any claims of the supernatural. Isn't the debate here whether or not Christianity is reasonable on the grounds that the Bible is trustworthy history or something like that? I read the discussion over absolutely certainty as largely irrelevant though I agree that you are correct here and Deidre was clumsy in her wording (I figured what she meant to say).

Quote:You seem to think that our debate is going to be revolving around a topic that is subject to the scientific method. Clearly this is incorrect. We are dealing with the accounts of historical events, i.e non-repeatable events that happened at some point in the past and not subject to direct observation and experimentation and therefore attempting to argue that we must extrapolate scientific methodology onto historiography is simply unjustified. Historiographers do not use the scientific method to determine whether or not historical accounts are reliable my friend which is what it seems to me that you are implying we should do.

True but it doesn't mean we need to suspend the broader use of scientific thinking which demands a critical review of the evidence, even if all we're able to deal with are the narratives themselves. We need more than simply the author's testimony or some hearsay by others. If not, then the Gospels are really no more special than a number of other works from the ancient world in which miraculous claims are treated as fact alongside lesser significant details since corroborated by archaeology and other writings.

Quote:When you dismiss anecdotal testimony as an "unreliable source for determining the deeper principle underlying the specific claims", it is clear that you are treating this matter with the scientific method in mind, not the historical method. This is indicative of a misconstrual of the historical method and such an understanding is simply incorrect.

Absolutely not and that's what doesn't set Christianity apart. There are literally tons of claims that parallel those in the Bible found in other texts. You don't even need to go to the ancient world to find them. In fact, I'm reading a book about NDEs right now and some people have apparently died within the past 40 years, only to be revived on their own two-three days later. Should we treat this by your definition of "the historical method" and say, "oh well, if there are people who witnessed this then the event must have occurred exactly as they interpreted it and portrayed it to us." What a fun-filled crazy world that would be. Yet if you were to read this book on NDEs 2,000 years from now and apply this uncritical method which by we trust every claim made by every person(s) in the book (which presumably you do in the case of the Bible), you would have a deeply distorted view of the facts.

Quote:Historians rely on anecdotal testimony quite frequently in determining the reliability of historical accounts. In fact, an anecdote is “the narration of a singular event,” a historeme or “the smallest minimal unit of the historiographic fact.” - From Joel Fineman's work published in The New Historicism, Ed. H. Aram Veeser(New York and London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 49-76, p. 56.

And so how many historians believe Jesus resurrected from the dead who are also not evangelists or theologians?

Quote:So it is clear from the above that you misconstrue not only the nature of an anecdote but how it correlates with respect to the historical methods of investigation utilized by contemporary historians. You dismiss the gospel accounts based on the fact that they are anecdotal testimony, a point which you have not even proven, but not only that, you incorrectly reason that therefore, these accounts are not reliable. This conclusion as I have demonstrated is simply incorrect.

So where exactly do UFOs fit into your methodology which fails to account for all the work done in the past 100 years? You know, I mean the work regarding physics, biology, psychology, physiology, neuroscience, etc., all of which clearly demonstrates that the brain is prone to irrational thinking, "patternity," cognitive dissonance, and other strange phenomena that explain ALL the abnormal experiences people have far better than your leap of unreasonable faith into the arms of Jesus or Yahweh or whatever it is you think the Trinity means.

Quote:What in the world is "reasonable certainty" intended to signify? In the case of syllogisms, nothing like "reasonable certainty" (how that is different from "certainty" has yet to be demonstrated by you) is even attempted.

Our belief in other minds, physical objects, things we touch, feel, taste--we say with "reasonable certainty" that these things are real--that is, I'm reasonably certain that these things exist and can be examined to the point that they are fully understood and at least understood better than they are now. Some things less accessible to our common experiences may also fit this term, such as various historical narratives and the most thoroughly vindicated theories of science--the Big Bang, evolution, the laws of gravity, etc. But again, historical narratives must not be all entirely accurate or entirely false. We weigh the specific nature of the claims against the background of the culture, the reasoning methods utilized at the time, etc. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Quote:Rather, in a philosophical argument for the existence of God, the premises are sought to be shown to be more plausible than their negation. If this is achieved and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic then the argument is proven, but nothing like reasonable certainty is required here.

You mean conclusions are couched into the premises through semantics and other games theological philosophers like to play. Don't worry about reasonable certainty being required here, nothing is ever actually accomplished through these.

Quote:In fact, moving from absolute certainty to "more plausible" or "more probable" helps me a great deal. It justifiably relieves me of the burden of having to do the impossible i.e. prove God exists with certainty!

Okay, granted.

Quote:You are right. Christianity cannot be proven to be true with certainty.

Or reasonable certainty. Or plausibility. Or probability.

Quote: Does it follow that therefore all other faiths pass my "critique"? Not at all! At most what follows is that no religious truth claims can be proven with certainty, but this in no way discourages me! For what secular truth claims can be proven with certainty???????

Well unfortunately, you've the set bar higher than Christianity can reach.

Quote:What can you prove to be true with certainty Pickup_shonuff?

Are you purposely trying to lead us down this rabbit hole again?

Quote:Just because I cannot demonstrate to you that Christianity is true with certainty, it does not follow that I must accept all religious truth claims as true!!! Nor does it follow that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion. Nor does it follow that God does not exist.

Again, never asked for absolute certainty. I asked for reasonable certainty, by which I meant probable cause. You can't offer even this because all you have are the wildly unsubstantiated claims of Jesus' pals. But no one cares about their ancient interpretation of different brain states and other phenomena that the disciples were neither skeptical nor inquisitive in understanding more deeply. Even today, when so much about the world is understood, people still don't give a shit to understand what's really going on. The disciples lived in a period of time that was much less rational and far more prone to deception, not to mention 90% of the population, including most of them, were illiterate.

Quote:You make the same mistake as others here have when you equate certainty with knowledge.

*face palm*

(March 7, 2014 at 10:37 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What he/she should have said is that there is not any experiential or experimental evidence that demands attribution to God,

Quote: There does not need to be. Science has no place in this discussion. We are talking about historical method, not scientific method.

Actually we're talking about gullibility, in which you think the historical method leaves room open for dragons, orcs, and fairies.

Quote:It seems to me you do not understand how the historical method and the scientific method differ. Nor does it seem to me that you are aware that each discipline operates in its own specific domain.

Question: How large do historians believe Christianity grew to be by the end of the first-century? Certainly (reasonably so), if a supernatural phenomenon truly occurred that was fundamentally different from the woo-woo we can discredit through science today, the figures must be incredible. If not, this works against their authenticity. In contrast, the scientific method revolutionized the globe within 100-150 years. God can certainly match man's achievements though, right?

(March 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: The Bible isn't an historical text book, nor in the same category as one, discipulus. Just sayin.'

I agree. The Bible is not a historical text book.

(March 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Using it to argue historical accounts of Jesus will be an effort in futility because I don't value the Bible as a reliable source of history.

That is what our debate will be about. Whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I affirm they are and you deny.

(March 8, 2014 at 4:49 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: The Bible isn't an historical text book, nor in the same category as one, discipulus. Just sayin.'

I agree. The Bible is not a historical text book.

(March 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Using it to argue historical accounts of Jesus will be an effort in futility because I don't value the Bible as a reliable source of history.

That is what our debate will be about. Whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I affirm they are and you deny.

Even as a Christian, I never looked at the NT as a reliable bio of Jesus. So, I don't care for this topic.

I'd rather prove why I believe that if Jesus existed, the story of the NT was a fabricated bunch of lies by the early church fathers in order to control society. To be honest, Jesus may have existed, I can't know for sure, one way or the other. But, I believe that after his death, the story of his life was largely fabricated in order to ''promote'' a superior faith to Judaism and Gnosticism. Therefore, Christianity like all religions, is nothing but a man made invention designed to control society, and gain power and wealth for its leaders.

I think this will serve as a much more interesting debate, and perhaps if you keep an open mind, you may come away seeing the Bible in a slightly different light. Maybe not. But, you will at least see that it doesn't support the evolution of Christianity. Jesus was against religion, why would he want one started on his behalf? lol

That is the topic I wish to debate. The Bible is not a reliable historical account of anything, including Jesus' life...you say so above, that you discount it as a historical text book. So, not sure your reason behind your topic suggestion.

I have an altruistic purpose behind my topic request. It will reveal to you, why I left Christianity and became Agnostic. :=)

Yes?

(March 8, 2014 at 11:00 am)discipulus Wrote: You seem to think that our debate is going to be revolving around a topic that is subject to the scientific method. Clearly this is incorrect. We are dealing with the accounts of historical events, i.e non-repeatable events that happened at some point in the past and not subject to direct observation and experimentation and therefore attempting to argue that we must extrapolate scientific methodology onto historiography is simply unjustified. Historiographers do not use the scientific method to determine whether or not historical accounts are reliable my friend which is what it seems to me that you are implying we should do.

When you dismiss anecdotal testimony as an "unreliable source for determining the deeper principle underlying the specific claims", it is clear that you are treating this matter with the scientific method in mind, not the historical method. This is indicative of a misconstrual of the historical method and such an understanding is simply incorrect.

If all you wish to argue regards what happened or what people claim happened, then historical methods are just fine. But if you want to make the jump from there to what exists or cosmology you'll have to bring more than that. I for one am willing to grant you lots of leeway as to what the historical record shows has been claimed to have happened. I'm only interested in how you move from there to any more general claim. I sure hope you don't base any such broader claims on an appeal to what-else-could-it-be?

History books are compiled to present historical facts, while the Bible's sole purpose is to 'sell' Christianity. Period. The fact that it occasionally references some historical tidbits, is irrelevant. It is a book designed to promote Christianity, which is the reason why it was compiled. So, a Christian views it as some sort of proof of all things holy. Understandable, but it doesn't serve well in an objective sense. The historical process discipulus, isn't left up to interpretation, it still follows a protocol for deciphering the validity of facts, through agreed upon objective, reliable sources. Unfortunately, you consider the Bible a reliable source. lol

I stated my topic request, discipulus. It seems to be somewhat in line with what you wish to debate, but taking it a slight step further.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Nor was it intended to since I would never argue that claim. But unless I misunderstood your assertion that "certainty is an impossible standard to meet which actually serves to support my argument," in no way does our fallibility lead credence to any claims of the supernatural.

You misunderstood what I was referring to when I said "my argument". The "my argument" was referring to the argument that it is unreasonable to expect absolute certainty when it comes to asking for proof of God's existence.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Isn't the debate here whether or not Christianity is reasonable on the grounds that the Bible is trustworthy history or something like that? I read the discussion over absolutely certainty as largely irrelevant though I agree that you are correct here and Deidre was clumsy in her wording (I figured what she meant to say).

The debate topic is: "Are the four Gospels credible/reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: True but it doesn't mean we need to suspend the broader use of scientific thinking which demands a critical review of the evidence, even if all we're able to deal with are the narratives themselves.

I agree. We must critically review the evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Absolutely not and that's what doesn't set Christianity apart. There are literally tons of claims that parallel those in the Bible found in other texts.

We are talking about the four ancient biographies of Jesus, not the entire compilation of sixty six books written over a period of approximately 1500 years.

This needs to be kept in mind.

I challenge you to name one account that parallels the accounts we are given in the gospels of a Jewish carpenter who lived during the Second-Temple period who performed a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms who was betrayed into the hands of a Roman Prefect by His own people, crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day.

I challenge you to name one account that could be said to parallel the above. Since you say there are tons, you should not have a hard time doing this.

Even the most skeptical critics cannot deny that the historical Jesus carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcism. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most skeptical scholars this century has seen, wrote back in 1926:

... there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries’ understanding, miracles, that is, deeds that were the result of supernatural, divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons. - Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 159.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: You don't even need to go to the ancient world to find them. In fact, I'm reading a book about NDEs right now and some people have apparently died within the past 40 years, only to be revived on their own two-three days later. Should we treat this by your definition of "the historical method" and say, "oh well, if there are people who witnessed this then the event must have occurred exactly as they interpreted it and portrayed it to us." What a fun-filled crazy world that would be. Yet if you were to read this book on NDEs 2,000 years from now and apply this uncritical method which by we trust every claim made by every person(s) in the book (which presumably you do in the case of the Bible), you would have a deeply distorted view of the facts.

I want you to give me an example of one person who died from being crucified and afterwards had a spear thrust through their side who then several days later came back to life on their own.

I challenge you right here and now to provide one instance where this has happened via natural means. With our current understanding of cell necrosis, this is naturally impossible. And please do not mention anything about a NDE because dying from being scourged and then crucified is not the same as a person experiencing a near death experience.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: And so how many historians believe Jesus resurrected from the dead who are also not evangelists or theologians?

I do not know. Nor is it even material to the discussion of whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: So where exactly do UFO abductions fit into your methodology which fails to account for all the work done in the past 100 years? You know, I mean the work regarding physics, biology, psychology, physiology, neuroscience, etc., all of which clearly demonstrates that the brain is prone to irrational thinking, "patternity," cognitive dissonance, and other strange phenomena that explain ALL the abnormal experiences people have far better than your leap of unreasonable faith into the arms of Jesus or Yahweh or whatever it is you think the Trinity means.

Who cares? My views on UFO's are immaterial to whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus's life. Bringing them up is a red herring.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Not necessarily. Would you like me to explain why?

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: You mean conclusions are couched into the premises through semantics and other games theological philosophers like to play. Don't worry about reasonable certainty being required here, nothing is ever actually accomplished through these.

You mean games philosophers play irrespective of their theological beliefs or lack thereof.

Dismissing syllogisms as "games" is to dismiss logic and reasoning as "games". If this is your response to the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, then either you really do not appreciate philosophy, logic and reasoning, or you have nothing better to object with. Either way, you fail.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Well unfortunately, you've the set bar higher than Christianity can reach.

I do not set the bar higher than Christianity can reach because I do not require absolute certainty in order to be able to say I have knowledge of certain historical events central to the Christian Faith.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Again, never asked for absolute certainty. I asked for reasonable certainty, by which I meant probable cause.

Two very different concepts my friend. They are not synonymous.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: You can't offer even this because all you have are the wildly unsubstantiated claims of Jesus' pals. But no one cares about their ancient interpretation of different brain states and other phenomena that the disciples were neither skeptical nor inquisitive in understanding more deeply. Even today, when so much about the world is understood, people still don't give a shit to understand what's really going on. The disciples lived in a period of time that was much less rational and far more prone to deception, not to mention 90% of the population, including most of them, were illiterate.

Say what you will, Jesus's empty tomb must be explained. The resurrection hypothesis given the background information, is the most probable.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Actually we're talking about gullibility, in which you think the historical method leaves room open for dragons, orcs, and fairies.

The historical method leaves room for us to infer whatever the evidence leads us to infer. With regards to fire breathing dragons, orcs, and fairies, I cannot think of any historical evidence that would compel me to accept their existence.

(March 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Question: How large do historians believe Christianity grew to be by the end of the first-century? Certainly (reasonably so), if a supernatural phenomenon truly occurred that was fundamentally different from the woo-woo we can discredit through science today, the figures must be incredible. If not, this works against their authenticity. In contrast, the scientific method revolutionized the globe within 100-150 years. God can certainly match man's achievements though, right?

This is a red herring. It simply is irrelevant to whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus's life.

Derp?

I think you are quietly stepping around the elephant in the room, discipulus. And that is...YOU need to prove that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was Divine, died for our sins, and resurrected from a tomb. Your only measure of doing this, is through the Bible, for that is the only place that it's ''recorded.'' I put recorded in quotes, because I believe the Bible to be a farce, and not a reliable source of proving God exists, or anything else, for that matter. So, you are going to use it as a reliable source, but the truth is ...it is your only source. Which should tell you something.

(March 8, 2014 at 5:59 pm)discipulus Wrote: The "my argument" was referring to the argument that it is unreasonable to expect absolute certainty when it comes to asking for proof of God's existence.

Unreasonable?!
Damn, I thought you were talking about a god, an entity capable of doing anything it wishes.
Clearly, if it exists, it does not wish that existence to be acknowledged by everyone.
Then again... why would it allow people to acknowledge it under many different guises and to then make war over which guise is the correct one?...
It's odd, to me...

So, I reckon that, if such a being exists, it just simply does not wish us to acknowledge it... and all gods that have been worshiped by mankind have all been equally man-made.

(March 8, 2014 at 5:10 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Even as a Christian, I never looked at the NT as a reliable bio of Jesus. So, I don't care for this topic.

You are wrong. And you should care. If it is shown that they are reliable then your "theory" that the early church fathers fabricated a bunch of lies is blown clear out of the water.

What "church fathers" are you referring to anyway?