The God of Convenience

[Esquilax]

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.

No, I'm saying that your claim that these purported miracles have been scientifically verified is bunk, because what's really happening is that a lack of results is being spun into results that indicate god, which they are not. "No answers," is not synonymous with "the answer is god." No answers means we have no answers, and how dare the catholic church leap immediately from there to this unverified nonsense?

Therefore, you don't accept the existence of Plato and Soccrates, or scads of other ancient figures and events, or miracles at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Mudhammam]

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.

Oh, the temple. Well that's rather insignificant. You're comparing the founding of one of the most prominent schools in the world by a person who left many writings about himself, whose affiliation with the school was recognized throughout the ancient world and disputed by no one, with the notion that a God appeared in the form of man and walked where thousands traversed every year, though nobody except the writer who recorded it in the Gospel, based on second-hand information decades later, paid much attention to it. Now why would I find that unconvincing?

I don't doubt that many men named Jesus walked through Jerusalem or its temple. I just doubt, as every intelligent person must, that the "son of God" caused the curtain to rip and hordes of zombies to flood Jerusalem's streets, as apparently everybody else who wrote about Jerusalem in that time did too---but to be fair, because they never heard such silly claims.

And who claim to be eyewitnesses? Who specifically? What do we know about these people? Of what specific events? I think you'll find your answers here rather lacking too.

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

Lol. Umm.. that should be pretty obvious by now. Like I said, common sense and experience demands that you'd require more evidence for my claim that I own a rainbow-colored Chimera or an intergalactic spaceship than you would if I said I went to the grocery store and the bank today. The Jesus we're talking about is more incredible, or ridiculous, than my fictional Chimera. The details of Plato's life are as trivial as my trip to buy milk.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence for Jesus' existence.

There's not? What about the enormous number of writings attesting to his existence? What evidence do we have that Plato existed? How about evidence for Socrates?

You had best read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus and find out how fucking wrong you are.

There is no contemporary evidence for your godboy. Zero. We have later writings written by believers.

Tell me, Lek. If you go to a copy machine with a piece of paper and make 10,000 copies of it does that improve the reliability of the content? Because that is what you have when you repeat that silly mantra. Copies of copies of copies ad nauseam. But it all boils down to one story: what is now called the gospel of "mark." The rest of it is deviations on the theme of the original.

And before you start in with the 'paul' shit, remember that paul doesn't know anything at all about that story.

[Lek]

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.

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.

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."

[Mudhammam]

The atheist answer to the question is "I don't know, but I'm convinced that science will find the answer someday."

That's not the "atheist" answer, that's just the sensible answer. In no way is it ever justifiable to say X caused Y when there is zero evidence that X exists, or if there is, that it has anything to do with Y.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm just waiting for George Washington to be doubted.

[robvalue]

The atheist answer is "Stop making shit up!"

[Lek]

The atheist answer to the question is "I don't know, but I'm convinced that science will find the answer someday."

That's not the "atheist" answer, that's just the sensible answer. In no way is it ever justifiable to say X caused Y when there is zero evidence that X exists, or if there is, that it has anything to do with Y.

A person has a terminal illness and one day it is gone. A team of doctors and scientists examine him and find no natural explanation for the sudden cure. There is no evidence for a supernatural cure or that nothing beyond natural exists? Who is living in a box here?

[abaris]

A person has a terminal illness and one day it is gone. A team of doctors and scientists examine him and find no natural explanation for the sudden cure. There is no evidence for a supernatural cure or that nothing beyond natural exists? Who is living in a box here?

If it is unexplainable then it is unexplainable and not god did it. It's better to continue to look for an answer which can help others in the future than lock it in the god box once and forever. It's a very far cry from not being able to explain something at a particular moment in time to making the factual statement, one particular god of one particular religion has chosen one particular person to work one particular miracle.

[robvalue]

My magical eyebrow did it!