RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 28, 2017 at 11:23 am
(This post was last modified: July 28, 2017 at 11:25 am by SteveII.)
(July 28, 2017 at 11:10 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:(July 27, 2017 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: What do you mean I don't accept ordinary evidence for anyone else's extraordinary claims? How would you know that? To what do you refer?
And it the body of evidence only included the 'stories', you would have a point. But that's no where near all that it includes (pasted from earlier):
- Documentary (both actual and inferred)
- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.
I do have some measure of faith they are accurate--but my point is and will continue to be, there is much more evidence that supports reasonable belief than the standard internet-bred atheist thinks. I have never demanded that anyone find it compelling, but claim there is "no evidence" (made left and right on this site) is just stupid talk and someone has to point that out--because atheist here hardly ever call out each other on stupidity.
Concrete evidence? None of your evidence points to your beliefs as the only possible explanation. And adding up all this evidence makes it no more proven or likely than any one piece.
While I know I will never get an answer from you, what are the other possible explanations that we see each of those 7 points? Make sure you get them all--because otherwise your theory will collapse like a house of cards.
I really only ask to point out your inch-deep (if that) knowledge of what you speak of--the proof of which will be the fact you won't answer.
(July 28, 2017 at 10:56 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(July 27, 2017 at 2:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: But your entire premise of all the NT players being fooled has absolutely no evidence except people were fooled before and since. In the absence of any real evidence of deceit it seems that is just an assumption entirely based on the supernatural content of the accounts. If that is so, you are question begging: the events are not evidence of the supernatural because the supernatural does not exist.
In the absence of REAL evidence, deceit is the more likely explanation. Fixed that for ya.
You too. Inch deep. Go ahead--explain why we have the list above.