Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

Of course multiple people can testify to the same event and still be wrong. So, I grasp the basic idea. Until you find an example of something that has the kind of context I listed in my a through k points, they are irrelevant--apples and oranges.

---

You and your definitions. Verification is not an exact synonym for proof. I highlighted the relevant words:

ver·i·fi·ca·tion
ˌverəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
   "the verification of official documents"
   synonyms:
   confirmation, substantiation, proof, corroboration, support, attestation, validation, authentication, endorsement
   "they may require further verification"
   

Third synonym, Steve... LMFAO

---

And no, Steve, it's not apples and oranges just because it torpedoes your argument.  It's your job to meet the burden of proof.  Everything in your argument hinges on the supernatural aspects of the story being true.  Appeals to testimony and popularity don't lend truth to supernatural claims.  It's just a distraction from the main problem you have - there's no way to prove the parts that make Jesus special actually happened.  There's a million and one reasons to believe they didn't happen (physics,  biology, how much his story comports to those of other myths, lack of independent, unbiased 3rd party accounts of these miracles, etc) and not one good reason to believe any of it is true, despite your desperate contortions.

Again, people believe things that aren't true all the time.  In your eyes, Islam is likely full of such people.  Guess what?  You're no different.  Also: Santa isn't real.

Comprehension skills continue to allude some of you. I said "exacts synonym". Look at the other 8 synonyms--none of which are synonyms of proof. I know definitions are hard, but we must at least try to understand the differences between words!

You can make all the arguments you want against Christianity. Knock yourself out! Regarding your "and not one good reason to believe any of it is true", I have outlined why it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least, good representations of what really happened. There is no problem with my logic. In case you need to refer to the list, this is what I had posted:

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

---

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

---

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

---

I do not know of any religion that offers eyewitness testimony, so according to your own definition of the word, christian evidence is as non existent as your god. Whatever some may say, accepting something that doesn't exist is delusion.

Christianity has eyewitnesses. John, Peter, James to name a few.

[The Grand Nudger]

All religions claim to have eyewitnesses, Steve.

[Astreja]

What are the contemporaneous sources for the life of Jesus, Steve? I don't see anything from historians such as Philo of Alexandria, who was in the right place and time and even had connections by marriage to the family of Herod.

[Minimalist]

Oh there you go with facts again.  Shitheads like Stevie hate facts.  He far prefers fairy tales!

[SteveII]

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

You are cherry picking. Your argument assigns some likelihood or probability of an inference based on incomplete data. You weren't there so you are looking at some of the available evidence and judging the probability of it being correct. But you aren't also taking into account other facts that are at odds with your hypothesis. Probably because you are ignorant of the implications if it were all true.

For example the likelihood of the miracles taking place is really small based on what else we know. What exactly would be required for Jesus to turn water into wine, walk on water, heal a blind man by spiting into his eyes, healing a severed ear etc. These miracles affected the physical world and so therefore had to be constrained by physics at least to some extent. The molecules involved needed to be sensed, processed and rearranged somehow, e.g. all the water molecules being tuned into wine. What was the power source and physical mechanisms used to enact these miracles? If you can't answer this then your argument is one of ignorance because it relies on you not being able to explain things.

There are also plenty of historical inaccuracies that you are not taking into account, which should also reduce the probability of it being true. For example the zombie outbreak described in Matthew 27:52 was not recorded elsewhere by any historians. Herod's killing of every two year old male child  etc. The fact that the written accounts differ quite significantly. Loads more historical inaccuracies here

When you take it all into account, the most likely explanation is that if it wasn't completely made up, then the eye witnesses were wrong. People raised from the dead weren't actually dead but in a coma and Jesus recognised this. When Jesus walked on water then it was an illusion because he had placed large stones to step on under the surface and stuck the severed ear back on the servant's head using a sticky substance and people didn't hang around to see it shrivel up and wither.

You are not taking into account all possible explanations and choosing one that is actually completely unreasonable to make because it's what you want to believe.

There is no cherry picking. I did not leave out facts that lead to another conclusion. 

Miracles are supernatural causes with a natural effect. It doe not matter how because we cannot investigate supernatural causes with natural tools. 

Regarding Matthew 27, if we say that is an inaccuracy, what does that do to the rest? Absolutely nothing. The written accounts do not differ significantly. I would actually hope there were some minor variations--since 100% similarities would actually cause concern.

No, the most likely explanation is that the events are as described by the people who very thoroughly believed them to have happened. You are welcome to alternate theories--but the problem with them is that NONE of them ever deal with the whole picture. I have never heard a theory the explains everything we have available to examine.

[vorlon13]

SteveII, you left out the biggest miracle of all:

Jesus being crucified twice !!!!

[SteveII]

What are the contemporaneous sources for the life of Jesus, Steve?  I don't see anything from historians such as Philo of Alexandria, who was in the right place and time and even had connections by marriage to the family of Herod.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicit...historical

[TheBeardedDude]

What are the contemporaneous sources for the life of Jesus, Steve?  I don't see anything from historians such as Philo of Alexandria, who was in the right place and time and even had connections by marriage to the family of Herod.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicit...historical

So....none?

[SteveII]

SteveII, you left out the biggest miracle of all:

Jesus being crucified twice !!!!

Do you imagine that beating that inane drum means anything to anyone? You sound ignorant and foolish EVERY time you say it.

[Whateverist]

All religions claim to have eyewitnesses, Steve.

Of course they do.  Thats why accepting eye witness testimony for any one of them is not special pleading.  On the other hand neither is it justified.