(January 4, 2015 at 8:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You need to quit it with the equivocations, because they are terribly dishonest. I accept the existence of Plato because we have his writings, his Academy, and primary sources that are contemporary with his existence. I accept the existence of Socrates for similar reasons. In short, I do have evidence for their existence, whereas we've both already established that the catholic church "tests" for miracles by first ascertaining that there is no evidence for their particular claim.
You may be right, but I don't know of any sources, that with were contemporary with Plato's lifetime and prove his existence, that have been established in a different way than Plato's own existence.
Quote:I've seen you arguing this same point with Pickup, but when you make comparisons between Plato and Jesus you're inherently equivocating, because we have no primary sources that are contemporary with Jesus' existence. Not one. When you say that Jesus preached at this or that temple, you're not getting that information from anyone that knew him, you're getting it from second hand stories written down at least a few decades after his death. It's nowhere near the same kind of confirmation, and I think you know that, which is why you're grasping at straws the way you are, trying to turn this around onto us to cover for your own lack of information.
Why? Do you have some kind of proof that the authors of the new testament are not who they claim to be? If they are the authors that the early church identified, then they were mostly all contemporaries of Jesus.
Quote:First of all, sarcasm is not a rebuttal.
Second of all, you started off by saying all us atheists would just dismiss all miracle claims out of hand. Don't then get all snarky when I point you to a group that seriously entertains these claims and puts their own money up for grabs in the bargain. It's your claim that's wrong, and it's not my problem that it's so easy to disprove.
Thirdly, did you actually do any research at all into the foundation's testing methodology, or the composition of the group, before you decided that it was wrong? Any tests they do are thoroughly negotiated, with the claimant themselves, before the test takes place. This isn't just some unfair imposition, it's a test that the claimants both agree to, and get to influence. That includes the judging criteria, of which Randi is not always a member, and in fact will recuse himself should the possibility of bias be hinted at. It's not just some bunch of atheists naysaying everything, as you wish to categorize it as, not that you've actually done any research that would enable you to make an informed conclusion like that, of course.
Fair enough. But how do you prove something happened by supernatural means, when you can always claim that the answer just hasn't been found yet in the natural realm? The atheist answer to the question is "I don't know, but I'm convinced that science will find the answer someday."
