The God of Convenience

[Kulthenius]

I don't know of any archaeological excavations that reveal the existence of Plato. How many historians from Plato's time write of his existence? The oldest surviving manuscript of any of Plato's works dates to 895 AD. That's about 1,300 years after his supposed lifetime. Yet virtually everyone believes he did exist. Most historians today believe that Jesus did exist. The manuscript evidence for Plato's existence doesn't hold a candle to the manuscript evidence for Jesus, of which the earliest copies date to one to two hundred years after his lifetime.

The manuscripts that date 1-2 hundred years after Jesus' alleged death are as reliable a source to prove divinity as 'The Iliad'.

Your claim to the dates of Plato's oldest surviving works is odd. As written works were not stored on hard drives or the cloud and actually written on physical stuff that deteriorates, it is only logical that they would have to be copied again and again or eventually biodegrade and be lost forever. The argument for manuscript evidence, for either side, is weak.

Plato, however, should be given the benefit of the doubt for existing because he was a just a normal dude. If his followers proclaimed that half his DNA came from god, he never sinned, turned water into wine, fed 6,000 people with 4 fish, bled through every pore in his body, got crucified and then resurrected after 3 days and then continued teaching in Athens although he had been executed as an enemy of the state, and you know, some government officials might have noticed him and said, 'huh, didn't we just kill him?' If that was part of Plato's legacy then there would be a lot more skepticism about his actual existence and the 'miracle's he performed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But if Jesus was such a big deal, why aren't there Gospels written during his life? You'd think a dude walking around on water, changing water into wine, magically healing people and coming back from the freaking dead would be events that would attract a lot more attention. How about letters to Caesar reading, "Holy, shit, dude, you gotta hear this. . ." ?

You know?

I mean, I know there was no Twitter or Facebook, but if a prophet was really pulling that sort of thing, word would get around, and someone would make a contemporaneous document.

As it is, we get things from 20 or 30 years later. The principals are dead, or hundreds if not thousands of miles away and cannot say what really happened.

[Lek]

Plato, however, should be given the benefit of the doubt for existing because he was a just a normal dude. If his followers proclaimed that half his DNA came from god, he never sinned, turned water into wine, fed 6,000 people with 4 fish, bled through every pore in his body, got crucified and then resurrected after 3 days and then continued teaching in Athens although he had been executed as an enemy of the state, and you know, some government officials might have noticed him and said, 'huh, didn't we just kill him?' If that was part of Plato's legacy then there would be a lot more skepticism about his actual existence and the 'miracle's he performed.

I can understand why unbelievers would ignore all the signs, especially since none of them saw the risen Jesus. We always have modern day "evangelists" claiming to have healed people from every kind of disease, but does it get any attention from anyone other than their followers? No, because they are immediately dismissed as phonies. I do the same thing. It would have the same with Jesus. The Romans, or other non-witnesses, would have immediately dismissed the miracles, just as you do. The catholics claim miracles, such as the miracles at Lourdes or miracles attributed to the intercession of certain saints Do you even bother to look into them or do you just disregard them as fabricated signs for the faithful?

[Esquilax]

I can understand why unbelievers would ignore all the signs, especially since none of them saw the risen Jesus. We always have modern day "evangelists" claiming to have healed people from every kind of disease, but does it get any attention from anyone other than their followers? No, because they are immediately dismissed as phonies. I do the same thing. It would have the same with Jesus. The Romans, or other non-witnesses, would have immediately dismissed the miracles, just as you do. The catholics claim miracles, such as the miracles at Lourdes or miracles attributed to the intercession of certain saints Do you even bother to look into them or do you just disregard them as fabricated signs for the faithful?

If all these supposed miracle workers either keep their miracles isolated from the scientific testing or objective verification that would prove them, or actively resist that same testing and verification, then what other choice do I have, but to dismiss them? Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and when it comes to miracle claims, they are always asserted without evidence. That's more than a little suspicious.

But what you can't do, Lek, is accuse us of just instant dismissal of these miracles when the first thing that comes to my mind, personally, when you present those claims is "what objective evidence or testing has been done?" It's not my problem that the answer is "none," and that I won't accept the simple claim of a miracle as proof of it, but you surely cannot lob these accusations of instant dismissals when what I immediately ask for is an interrogation and testing of the claim beyond what you yourself want.

[Mudhammam]

I don't know of any archaeological excavations that reveal the existence of Plato.

Well, there was the school he founded, the Academy, which was a prominent center for education for 800 years, that has been excavated.

How many historians from Plato's time write of his existence?

Perhaps I spoke in haste. Apart from Plato's own writings and his student Aristotle, I could not find any sources that could be considered from Plato's time. Information about what Plato's contemporaries thought about him come to us through later writers.

The oldest surviving manuscript of any of Plato's works dates to 895 AD. That's about 1,300 years after his supposed lifetime. Yet virtually everyone believes he did exist. Most historians today believe that Jesus did exist. The manuscript evidence for Plato's existence doesn't hold a candle to the manuscript evidence for Jesus, of which the earliest copies date to one to two hundred years after his lifetime.

So, because the earliest copies of his works are much later, you think that casts doubt on... What exactly? It wouldn't matter if we had Paul's letters written in his own hand... that is evidence of nothing.

[Lek]

If all these supposed miracle workers either keep their miracles isolated from the scientific testing or objective verification that would prove them, or actively resist that same testing and verification, then what other choice do I have, but to dismiss them? Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and when it comes to miracle claims, they are always asserted without evidence. That's more than a little suspicious.

Here's a very short article about the catholic church's process for verifying miracles. As you will read, objective testing is done[/quote] by scientists and medical experts.

http://sciencenordic.com/pope%E2%80%99s-...y-miracles

But what you can't do, Lek, is accuse us of just instant dismissal of these miracles when the first thing that comes to my mind, personally, when you present those claims is "what objective evidence or testing has been done?" It's not my problem that the answer is "none," and that I won't accept the simple claim of a miracle as proof of it, but you surely cannot lob these accusations of instant dismissals when what I immediately ask for is an interrogation and testing of the claim beyond what you yourself want.

No objective testing of Jesus' miracles was accomplished at the time. Nor were Jesus or his followers concerned about that. There were so called miracle workers all over the place in the area at the time. Jesus was just a lower class wandering preacher as far as the Roman and Jewish officials were concerned. Just as the government today doesn't go out and investigate miracles, even though the Vatican does, I'm sure that the Roman and Jewish officials didn't either. I contend that most unbelievers would just dismiss them in their minds, the same as they do today.

---

Well, there was the school he founded, the Academy, which was a prominent center for education for 800 years, that has been excavated.

This is the same kind of archaeological evidence we have for Jesus. We have the remains of the temple where Jesus is said to have taught, but that doesn't prove his existence or even that he taught there, but him[/quote] puts it in a real setting.

Perhaps I spoke in haste. Apart from Plato's own writings and his student Aristotle, I could not find any sources that could be considered from Plato's time. Information about what Plato's contemporaries thought about him come to us through later writers.

The same type of evidence that we have for Jesus.

So, because the earliest copies of his works are much later, you think that casts doubt on... What exactly? It wouldn't matter if we had Paul's letters written in his own hand... that is evidence of nothing.

If we had the original manuscripts of Paul's letters, and could date them to the time of Paul's life, then we would be more likely to assume that they were actually written by the apostle Paul, rather than someone claiming to be him. The same for the gospels. The more the originals are copied and the further in time they are from the originals, the more chance there is of mistakes in copying or intentional changes. You've got a period of about 1,300 years from from the original writings of any manuscripts from Plato and less than 100 years for the oldest manuscript from the new testament.

[abaris]

No objective testing of Jesus' miracles was accomplished at the time. Nor were Jesus or his followers concerned about that. There were so called miracle workers all over the place in the area at the time. Jesus was just a lower class wandering preacher as far as the Roman and Jewish officials were concerned. Just as the government today doesn't go out and investigate miracles, even though the Vatican does, I'm sure that the Roman and Jewish officials didn't either. I contend that most unbelievers would just dismiss them in their minds, the same as they do today.

We're talking about a time when Roman generals consulted their augurs before going into battle. And as far a civilization is concerned, the Romans and Greeks were the most reasonable people of the age. The common people were much more gullible than the upper classes, even more so in Judea, where education was practically unknown. So these miracle workers found a susceptible audience, which can eplain a lot about Jesus and his followers. The possibility of him being a very skilled snake oil vendor is much more plausible than his divinity when it comes to dealing with reality.

[Esquilax]

Here's a very short article about the catholic church's process for verifying miracles. As you will read, objective testing is done by scientists and medical experts.

http://sciencenordic.com/pope%E2%80%99s-...y-miracles

Did you read the article? If you did, I'm surprised you thought I wouldn't spot the obvious flaws with the methodology right away; despite the lip service being paid to science here, the church's methods go against the very basis of the scientific method. It's an argument from ignorance: they call in these scientists- whom the article also states could be influenced or pressured by the church to give the answers they want- and then if the scientists can't find a scientific explanation, they assume supernatural causation and hand the case over to theologians, who use more presupposed claims and lacks of evidence to decide whether the thing they've assumed based on a scarcity of evidence is satan based or god based.

That's not proof. "We don't know," does not mean "god did it." That's an argument from ignorance coupled with a god of the gaps fallacy. When I ask for scientific testing and verification, what that entails is positive evidence for godly intervention, not simply a lack of conclusive proof for natural means. This is exactly the problem I had earlier, when I said these miracle claims resist actual testing; here we have a smokescreen of scientific legitimacy good enough to fool guys like you who don't really understand how science works and want to believe in miracles, but which is transparently just another part of the con game when examined by anyone who can actually name logical fallacies. I wonder, how long are these scientists given to test these claims, before the catholic church just uses their lack of conclusive results to lift the case out of their hands.

"Oh, what's that, you have no answer yet? Oh, no need to keep looking, don't bother yourself with those other tests, it's clearly a miracle, just take your paycheck and go. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

No objective testing of Jesus' miracles was accomplished at the time. Nor were Jesus or his followers concerned about that. There were so called miracle workers all over the place in the area at the time. Jesus was just a lower class wandering preacher as far as the Roman and Jewish officials were concerned. Just as the government today doesn't go out and investigate miracles, even though the Vatican does, I'm sure that the Roman and Jewish officials didn't either. I contend that most unbelievers would just dismiss them in their minds, the same as they do today.

There are more ways to test a claim than either the government or biased church officials. The James Randi foundation will do it for you, and even give you a million dollar prize if you can demonstrate supernatural causation for your supposed miracle. That's the James Randi foundation that's run by James Randi the atheist skeptic, by the way.

And you're talking to another atheist whose first question, when confronted with miracle claims, was to ask for more details. Your little accusation of dismissal is a common theistic defense mechanism when their claims aren't immediately accepted, but it's not going to work here; finding the evidence and methodology behind your claims to be insufficient is not the same thing as dismissing them, no matter how much better it makes you feel to just pretend that we're all close minded to the obvious truth of your proposition.

[Mudhammam]

This is the same kind of archaeological evidence we have for Jesus. We have the remains of the temple where Jesus is said to have taught, but that doesn't prove his existence or even that he taught there, but puts him in a real setting.

What temple is that? Even if that is the case, that isn't the "same type of evidence." The Academy wasn't an obscure facility where some no-name preacher may have taught. It was a major institution for education where countless well-established names learned and is very well known throughout the ancient world. Strange that Plato's name would be linked to its founding, and no other authors would dispute that fact, if it was untrue. We're not talking about an obscure cult started in the backwaters of Palestine as in the case of Christianity. On the other hand, apparently nobody knew of a Jesus of Nazareth until long after he died, in a century in which many more contemporary works survive. And don't forget, unlike Plato, whose existence is not inherently improbable (whereas 90% of what is recorded about Jesus is), Jesus supposedly performed numerous earth-shaking (quite literally) miracles during his "public" ministry.

But once again, I don't need to prove that Plato was a philosopher who taught at the Academy and left dozens of works. For one, we have his own words, and it makes no difference if his writings were compiled by others (for which it would be on the person making that claim to offer evidence), because their importance is untouched by such a possibility.

If we had the original manuscripts of Paul's letters, and could date them to the time of Paul's life, then we would be more likely to assume that they were actually written by the apostle Paul, rather than someone claiming to be him. The same for the gospels. The more the originals are copied and the further in time they are from the originals, the more chance there is of mistakes in copying or intentional changes. You've got a period of about 1,300 years from from the original writings of any manuscripts from Plato and less than 100 years for the oldest manuscript from the new testament.

I could write a book and you could read it next week. I could say that I own an intergalactic spaceship and a rainbow-colored Chimera named Hilary Clinton. It wouldn't make any of my claims more probable, even if I placed my Chimera in known locations. That's your Jesus. If I wrote, however, that I went to Kroger, then the bank, and stopped at my girlfriend's house for cake, that would be a boring book, but it would be trivial to the point that whether or not my details were completely accurate, it would have no effect on the probability that I did something like that. For the most part, that's Plato.

[Lek]

Did you read the article? If you did, I'm surprised you thought I wouldn't spot the obvious flaws with the methodology right away; despite the lip service being paid to science here, the church's methods go against the very basis of the scientific method. It's an argument from ignorance: they call in these scientists- whom the article also states could be influenced or pressured by the church to give the answers they want- and then if the scientists can't find a scientific explanation, they assume supernatural causation and hand the case over to theologians, who use more presupposed claims and lacks of evidence to decide whether the thing they've assumed based on a scarcity of evidence is satan based or god based.


That's not proof. "We don't know," does not mean "god did it." That's an argument from ignorance coupled with a god of the gaps fallacy. When I ask for scientific testing and verification, what that entails is positive evidence for godly intervention, not simply a lack of conclusive proof for natural means. This is exactly the problem I had earlier, when I said these miracle claims resist actual testing; here we have a smokescreen of scientific legitimacy good enough to fool guys like you who don't really understand how science works and want to believe in miracles, but which is transparently just another part of the con game when examined by anyone who can actually name logical fallacies. I wonder, how long are these scientists given to test these claims, before the catholic church just uses their lack of conclusive results to lift the case out of their hands.

"Oh, what's that, you have no answer yet? Oh, no need to keep looking, don't bother yourself with those other tests, it's clearly a miracle, just take your paycheck and go. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

Okay. So you won't accept a miracle just because doctors and scientists can find no natural explanation and these people have prayed for healing from God, and have been healed, because you see no proof that it was a miracle. Therefore, you don't accept the existence of Plato and Soccrates, or scads of other ancient figures and events, or miracles at all.

There are more ways to test a claim than either the government or biased church officials. The James Randi foundation will do it for you, and even give you a million dollar prize if you can demonstrate supernatural causation for your supposed miracle. That's the James Randi foundation that's run by James Randi the atheist skeptic, by the way.

Gee. You mean that they have to convince some atheists that there is a supernatural explanation for a miracle? I'm sure that his foundation is the expert in that area.

---

What temple is that? Even if that is the case, that isn't the "same type of evidence." The Academy wasn't an obscure facility where some no-name preacher may have taught. It was a major institution for education where countless well-established names learned and is very well known throughout the ancient world. Strange that Plato's name would be linked to its founding, and no other authors would dispute that fact, if it was untrue. We're not talking about an obscure cult started in the backwaters of Palestine as in the case of Christianity. On the other hand, apparently nobody knew of a Jesus of Nazareth until long after he died, in a century in which many more contemporary works survive. And don't forget, unlike Plato, whose existence is not inherently improbable (whereas 90% of what is recorded about Jesus is), Jesus supposedly performed numerous earth-shaking (quite literally) miracles during his "public" ministry.

The temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish faith. It was perhaps the best known building in the city and in all of Israel. People knew of Jesus before and after he died. Writers of many of the books of the new testament claimed to be eyewitness. Of course, that's what we have with Plato.

I could write a book and you could read it next week. I could say that I own an intergalactic spaceship and a rainbow-colored Chimera named Hilary Clinton. It wouldn't make any of my claims more probable, even if I placed my Chimera in known locations. That's your Jesus. If I wrote, however, that I went to Kroger, then the bank, and stopped at my girlfriend's house for cake, that would be a boring book, but it would be trivial to the point that whether or not my details were completely accurate, it would have no effect on the probability that I did something like that. For the most part, that's Plato.

So you accept Plato because he is more believable to you.