Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Minimalist]

We have a winner.  And it sure as fuck ain't jesus.

Who is the winner? I MUST KNOW!!!

You are.

[TheBeardedDude]

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.

We can't examine supernatural causes before we have some evidence of the supernatural existing. 

I would expect the word of god to have no inaccuracies.  I would expect the word of people to have quite a few, especially over the many years.  I would also expect that. if god wanted us to hear and understand his words, he would only allow an accurate book to be written to contain them.  If the bible had no inaccuracies, It would give me reason to pause and reconsider if this was indeed divinely inspired, if only for a fraction of a second, until my education on the subject was recalled.

It all comes down to: you want it to be true.  And your confirmation bias gives it the veneer of plausibility.

I would expect a god to not rely on humans to be the ones delivering its message when it came to communication. If even a mere and imperfect human can see the fatal flaw in such a plan, then an omniscient god should have known it too and would have known a better way of communicating its message (and it would know a way of communicating it, without flaws, in such a way so as not to violate free will. It would know how to do this because it is omniscient and omnipotent)

[Harry Nevis]

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

A wiki article written by christians, and able to be edited by anyone pulls little weight when we've seen how dishonest believers can be when defending their faith.

[TheBeardedDude]

Who is the winner? I MUST KNOW!!!

You are.

They like me. They really like me!

[Harry Nevis]

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.

Has it ever been addressed?  I don't remember anyone explaining it.

[TheBeardedDude]

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

A wiki article written by christians, and able to be edited by anyone pulls little weight when we've seen how dishonest believers can be when defending their faith.

And the linking to the Wiki article was a red herring as it didn't actually do anything to address the question it was in response to 

[Minimalist]

From Richard Carrier's "Why I Am Not A Christian."

If I say I own a car, I don’t have to present very much evidence to prove it, because you have already observed mountains of evidence that people like me own cars. All of that evidence (for the general proposition “people like him own cars”) provides so much support for the particular proposition (“he owns a car”) that only minimal evidence is needed to confirm that particular proposition.

But if I say I own a nuclear missile, we are in different territory. You have just as large a mountain of evidence, from your own study as well as direct observation, that “people like him own nuclear missiles” is not true. Therefore, I need much more evidence to prove that particular claim—in fact, I need about as much evidence (in quantity and quality) as would be required to prove the general proposition “people like him own nuclear missiles.”

Now suppose I told you “I own an interstellar spacecraft.” That would be an even more extraordinary claim—because there is no general proposition supporting it that is even remotely confirmed. Not only do you have very good evidence that “people like him own interstellar spacecraft” is not true, you also have no evidence that this has ever been true for anyone—unlike the nuclear missile. You don’t even have reliable evidence that interstellar spacecraft exist, much less reside on earth. Therefore, the burden of evidence I would have to bear here is enormous. Just think of what it would take for you to believe me, and you will see what I mean.

Once we appeal to common sense like this, everyone concedes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And Christianity quite clearly makes very extraordinary claims: that there is a disembodied, universally-present being with magical powers; that this superbeing actually conjured and fabricated the present universe from nothing; that we have souls that survive the death of our bodies (or that our bodies will be rebuilt in the distant future by this invisible superbeing); and that this being possessed the body of Jesus two thousand years ago, who then performed many supernatural deeds before miraculously rising from the grave to chat with his friends, and then flew up into outer space.

Not a single one of these claims has any proven general proposition to support it. We have never observed any evidence for any “disembodied being” or any person who was present “everywhere.” We have never observed anyone who had magical powers, or any evidence that such powers even exist in principle (what stories we do have of such people are always too dubious to trust, and always remain unconfirmed in practice). We have no good evidence that we have death-surviving souls or that anyone can or will resurrect our bodies. We have never confirmed that anyone was ever possessed by God. We have never observed anyone performing anything confirmed to be miraculous, much less rising from graves or any comparable ability. Supposed claims of psychic powers, astrological prediction, biblical prophecy, and so on, have all turned out to be unprovable or outright bunk.

Therefore, these are without doubt extraordinary claims every bit as much as “I own an interstellar spacecraft,” and indeed are even more extraordinary than that. For we already have tons of evidence confirming the elements of the general proposition that “there can be an interstellar spacecraft.” We could probably build one today with present technology. But we have no evidence whatsoever confirming the general propositions “there can be a disembodied superbeing,” “there can be disembodied souls,” “there can be genuine miracles,” and so on.

I do not mean these things are not logically possible. What I mean is that we have no evidence they are physically possible, much less real, in the way we know an interstellar spacecraft is physically possible or that a nuclear missile is real. Therefore, Christianity entails many of the most extraordinary claims conceivable. It therefore requires the most extraordinary amount of evidence to believe it, even more evidence than would be needed to believe that I own an interstellar spacecraft. And Christianity simply doesn’t come even remotely close to meeting this standard. It could—just as I am sure I could prove to you I owned an interstellar spacecraft, if I actually had one. So I am sure I could prove to you that Christianity is true... if it actually were.†

I'm sure Stevie and the other dolts will run screaming from the room before they would consider any of this.  They do so want to believe in Holy Horseshit.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

We can't examine supernatural causes before we have some evidence of the supernatural existing. 

Or even a definition of supernatural. The very word is nonsensical.

[Huggy Bear]

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

A wiki article written by christians, and able to be edited by anyone pulls little weight when we've seen how dishonest believers can be when defending their faith.

I like how you guys dismiss wiki articles when it's convenient

You don't see the list of sources at the bottom of the page?

[TheBeardedDude]

A wiki article written by christians, and able to be edited by anyone pulls little weight when we've seen how dishonest believers can be when defending their faith.

I like how you guys dismiss wiki articles when it's convenient

You don't see the list of sources at the bottom of the page?

And none of them provide any contemporary sources to validate the claims made of the gospels.

Darn pesky facts