Ask, Seek, Knock

[downbeatplumb]

Has Drich invented a new gap for his god?

What about the one between his ears?

Pretty sure that's the old gap.

[John V]

Arguments from silence aren't fallacious if based on your premise you would expect to have heard or read something.

Sure. However, consider what you guys expect here. Someone who believes these accounts is dismissed due to bias. So, you expect that people who don't believe these accounts to record them and copy them in sufficient number to survive for millenia. Your expectations are illogical. Further, even if you find such records, you can charge that the author was obviously a believer and dismiss them.

---

P.S. - There is nothing wrong with an argument from silence. All it means is that there is no evidence to back up your position.

Lima Mike Oscar Alpha

Are you allowed to quote other people in your sig on this site? This is a beauty!

[Darkstar]

Arguments from silence aren't fallacious if based on your premise you would expect to have heard or read something.

Sure. However, consider what you guys expect here. Someone who believes these accounts is dismissed due to bias. So, you expect that people who don't believe these accounts to record them and copy them in sufficient number to survive for millenia. Your expectations are illogical. Further, even if you find such records, you can charge that the author was obviously a believer and dismiss them.

If the government recorded it, it would have more credibility. I'm not saying someone who believed the accounts, but someone who can actually provide any evidence beyond heresay. A government record recording eyewitness accounts would have a lot more weight than a heresay account which might not even be able to be traced to the original author who, himself, only learned of the event through heresay (or fabricated the events). The bible was written over fifty years after these events happened. Why? (semi-rhetorical)

[John V]

If the government recorded it, it would have more credibility.

Definitely - but the question is, should we expect to find government record of it? If so, then as tea noted, it's a valid argument from silence. If not, it's a garden-variety fallacious argument from silence.

Do we have a multitude of government records of such claims from religions in outlying areas from that time period? If not, why is such expectation re: Christian claims reasonable?

[Darkstar]

If the government recorded it, it would have more credibility.

Definitely - but the question is, should we expect to find government record of it? If so, then as tea noted, it's a valid argument from silence. If not, it's a garden-variety fallacious argument from silence.

Do we have a multitude of government records of such claims from religions in outlying areas from that time period? If not, why is such expectation re: Christian claims reasonable?

Claims or facts? If Jesus merely claimed he was the son of god, but provided no evidence for it, that would be different from if he had. I don't think miracles from other religions were recorded. My point, currently, is focusing on one particular event in which the dead walked the streets.

---

Matthew 27:52-53 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

---

Kind of hard to miss, especially since it explicitly states that 'they appeared to many people.

[John V]

Claims or facts? If Jesus merely claimed he was the son of god, but provided no evidence for it, that would be different from if he had. I don't think miracles from other religions were recorded.

OK, then we shouldn't expect such records for Christianity.

My point, currently, is focusing on one particular event in which the dead walked the streets.

---

Matthew 27:52-53 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

---

Kind of hard to miss, especially since it explicitly states that 'they appeared to many people.

It could be very easy to miss. We're not given enough to say. Atheists tend to view this as a zombie invasion. Yes, skeletons and rotting bodies would be hard to miss. OTOH, if the people were raised in normal living bodies and clothing, it would be quite easy to miss, especially considering that the population of Jerusalem swelled four-fold during Passover.

[Minimalist]

If not, why is such expectation re: Christian claims reasonable?

Because you make the absurd claim that a dead jew came back to life which would have been BIG FUCKING NEWS in that society.

Yet...nary a whisper from anyone who was alive at the time and only a pile of later written and later-still edited self-serving documents from people who were not present.

It takes a special kind of gullibility to fall for such shit. I call that gullibility "religion."

[Anomalocaris]

OK, then we shouldn't expect such records for Christianity.

Fine, then christianity shouldn't expect to be believed.

That fact that christianity is so constituteed as to be hard to support with evidence does excuse it from needing precisely that sort of evidence it lacks in order to be believed. It just suggest that it is constructed on bullshit, AND THEN fortified with sophistry and embellished with squishy intellectual rot. Otherwise it would have ended with "it lack proper evidence".

Proper evidence is the only acceptable evidence. Have it, and you gain credibility. Have it not, for whatever excuse, you lose credibility. It's that simple, it's that absolute.

If christainity lacks proper evidence for its own validity, then it is bullshit and it isd craven for you to try to propogate it. It's that simple. It is that absolute.

[Drich]

I have never heard that term "Gap for God." Can anyone explain?

[The Grand Nudger]

You/we don't know, ergo god.

"We don't know where we came from, ergo god"

"We don't know that the romans didn't write about jesus, ergo god"

Reference something unknown (or more amusingly just assert that something is unknown regardless of whether or not it is), then conclude god. Essentially 90% of your arguments for god, so forgive me if I call BS. You're very familiar with the concept.
Specifically. .wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance