RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
August 3, 2017 at 11:14 pm
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2017 at 11:17 pm by Amarok.)
(August 3, 2017 at 2:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Useless apologetic assholes think it was real.
Others, not so much.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/q_linnemann.pdf
Quote:Imagine flying to a non-existent island on an airplane that has not yet been invented.
Even if this impossible trip were to take place during the thirteenth month of the year, it
would not be as fantastic as the tale, recently christened as scientific certainty by some NT
scholars, concerning the so-called lost gospel Q and the earliest Church.
No, Q is merely the invention of certain 19th century scholars who realized that the gospel tale they were told were total bullshit and needed some help. So they invented some. In much the same way as early xtian liars invented your fucking godboy.
Give it up, lad.
Same goes for L and M
(August 3, 2017 at 4:23 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:(August 3, 2017 at 1:54 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't respond because you are disrespectful to God, I don't respond because you are disrespectful to me (and intentionally so). I'm not upset--just recognize what a waste of time answering you would be. It's a shame, perhaps you have some good points.
Or maybe you don't respond because you don't want to consider the ramifications of my points.
Awe Gent said mean things to steve so he takes his ball and runs home .
(August 3, 2017 at 8:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote:(August 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regardless of your intentions, 'implausible' actually mean unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince and so it is exactly what I said it was. If we substitute the definition into your sentence: "unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince claims require greater evidence to be believed than do more probable events".
So why not stick with extra-ordinary then. And how about we define it as something never before witnessed. The fact that you think the resurrection was witnessed this one time -and presumably only this one time- cannot substantiate the genre when it is the first/only instance of what you've claimed.
If what you've claimed is not extraordinary, then point to the prior noncontroversial instantiation of the same phenomenon. If it is the first/only of its kind, then it is certainly extraordinary and, for those of us not already inclined to expect such things, in need of extraordinary evidence. Otherwise just go on about your business believing stuff you feel satisfied to believe while we go on rejecting it for being beyond the realm of what can be accepted without more than you've offered as justification.
To bad for steve it's anything but no matter how much he screams "begging the question"
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb