Debate with a Christian

[discipulus]

Nor was it intended to since I would never argue that claim. But unless I misunderstood your assertion that "certainty is an impossible standard to meet which actually serves to support my argument," in no way does our fallibility lead credence to any claims of the supernatural.

You misunderstood what I was referring to when I said "my argument". The "my argument" was referring to the argument that it is unreasonable to expect absolute certainty when it comes to asking for proof of God's existence.

Isn't the debate here whether or not Christianity is reasonable on the grounds that the Bible is trustworthy history or something like that? I read the discussion over absolutely certainty as largely irrelevant though I agree that you are correct here and Deidre was clumsy in her wording (I figured what she meant to say).

The debate topic is: "Are the four Gospels credible/reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

True but it doesn't mean we need to suspend the broader use of scientific thinking which demands a critical review of the evidence, even if all we're able to deal with are the narratives themselves.

I agree. We must critically review the evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible.

Absolutely not and that's what doesn't set Christianity apart. There are literally tons of claims that parallel those in the Bible found in other texts.

We are talking about the four ancient biographies of Jesus, not the entire compilation of sixty six books written over a period of approximately 1500 years.

This needs to be kept in mind.

I challenge you to name one account that parallels the accounts we are given in the gospels of a Jewish carpenter who lived during the Second-Temple period who performed a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms who was betrayed into the hands of a Roman Prefect by His own people, crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day.

I challenge you to name one account that could be said to parallel the above. Since you say there are tons, you should not have a hard time doing this.

Even the most skeptical critics cannot deny that the historical Jesus carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcism. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most skeptical scholars this century has seen, wrote back in 1926:

... there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries’ understanding, miracles, that is, deeds that were the result of supernatural, divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons. - Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 159.

You don't even need to go to the ancient world to find them. In fact, I'm reading a book about NDEs right now and some people have apparently died within the past 40 years, only to be revived on their own two-three days later. Should we treat this by your definition of "the historical method" and say, "oh well, if there are people who witnessed this then the event must have occurred exactly as they interpreted it and portrayed it to us." What a fun-filled crazy world that would be. Yet if you were to read this book on NDEs 2,000 years from now and apply this uncritical method which by we trust every claim made by every person(s) in the book (which presumably you do in the case of the Bible), you would have a deeply distorted view of the facts.

I want you to give me an example of one person who died from being crucified and afterwards had a spear thrust through their side who then several days later came back to life on their own.

I challenge you right here and now to provide one instance where this has happened via natural means. With our current understanding of cell necrosis, this is naturally impossible. And please do not mention anything about a NDE because dying from being scourged and then crucified is not the same as a person experiencing a near death experience.

And so how many historians believe Jesus resurrected from the dead who are also not evangelists or theologians?

I do not know. Nor is it even material to the discussion of whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus.

So where exactly do UFO abductions fit into your methodology which fails to account for all the work done in the past 100 years? You know, I mean the work regarding physics, biology, psychology, physiology, neuroscience, etc., all of which clearly demonstrates that the brain is prone to irrational thinking, "patternity," cognitive dissonance, and other strange phenomena that explain ALL the abnormal experiences people have far better than your leap of unreasonable faith into the arms of Jesus or Yahweh or whatever it is you think the Trinity means.

Who cares? My views on UFO's are immaterial to whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus's life. Bringing them up is a red herring.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Not necessarily. Would you like me to explain why?

You mean conclusions are couched into the premises through semantics and other games theological philosophers like to play. Don't worry about reasonable certainty being required here, nothing is ever actually accomplished through these.

You mean games philosophers play irrespective of their theological beliefs or lack thereof.

Dismissing syllogisms as "games" is to dismiss logic and reasoning as "games". If this is your response to the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, then either you really do not appreciate philosophy, logic and reasoning, or you have nothing better to object with. Either way, you fail.

Well unfortunately, you've the set bar higher than Christianity can reach.

I do not set the bar higher than Christianity can reach because I do not require absolute certainty in order to be able to say I have knowledge of certain historical events central to the Christian Faith.

Again, never asked for absolute certainty. I asked for reasonable certainty, by which I meant probable cause.

Two very different concepts my friend. They are not synonymous.

You can't offer even this because all you have are the wildly unsubstantiated claims of Jesus' pals. But no one cares about their ancient interpretation of different brain states and other phenomena that the disciples were neither skeptical nor inquisitive in understanding more deeply. Even today, when so much about the world is understood, people still don't give a shit to understand what's really going on. The disciples lived in a period of time that was much less rational and far more prone to deception, not to mention 90% of the population, including most of them, were illiterate.

Say what you will, Jesus's empty tomb must be explained. The resurrection hypothesis given the background information, is the most probable.

Actually we're talking about gullibility, in which you think the historical method leaves room open for dragons, orcs, and fairies.

The historical method leaves room for us to infer whatever the evidence leads us to infer. With regards to fire breathing dragons, orcs, and fairies, I cannot think of any historical evidence that would compel me to accept their existence.

Question: How large do historians believe Christianity grew to be by the end of the first-century? Certainly (reasonably so), if a supernatural phenomenon truly occurred that was fundamentally different from the woo-woo we can discredit through science today, the figures must be incredible. If not, this works against their authenticity. In contrast, the scientific method revolutionized the globe within 100-150 years. God can certainly match man's achievements though, right?

This is a red herring. It simply is irrelevant to whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus's life.