RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
August 2, 2017 at 7:45 am
(This post was last modified: August 2, 2017 at 7:48 am by Harry Nevis.)
(August 1, 2017 at 4:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(August 1, 2017 at 2:34 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: 1. This is not knowledge of god, as nothing that is observed is only attributable to a god.
2. Nothing is revealed except that people believed.
3. Unsubstantiated stories.
4. Unfalsifiable hearsay.
1. Only God satisfies the 5W.
2. Provides historical context.
3. Gives reliable accounts.
4. Properly basic sensus divinitatis.
1. Bullshit
2. Because it was written in a point in history. That is revelation?!
3. Bullshit. You can't judge reliability from them with no outside corroboration.
4. Bullshit by another name.
(August 1, 2017 at 9:06 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(August 1, 2017 at 7:59 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Documents that purport to being factual accounts require some form of independent corroboration in order to verify their claims.
You mean like other documents? Then you're going to tell me those other documents are claims too that require more documents to support their claims and so on into infinity. That's why the meme is bullshit. We have 4 gospels writing about the same people, places and events. We have several letters discussing those people, places and events. We have historian writing about the central figure mentioned in the 4 gospels and the several letters. We have archaeological evidence for some of those people, like Pilate, and places, like the pool of Bethesda. etc. etc.
No outside evidence for anything out of the ordinary.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam