The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Thanks for addressing my point.

But here we go, logical fallacies I'm afraid. Equivocation fallacy: courtroom. No half decent courtroom accepts supernatural explanations. In your example, we have a load of people in court just saying what they believe happened, and it's an extraordinary story. It's akin to "I saw a ghost appear and it scared him to death." Now, do you think any courtroom would ever accept a claim like that? Even if the court think these 20 witnesses, all with the same story, really do think they are telling the truth? Even if they are the most reliable witnesses ever? The answer is no. Or if they do accept it, the court is a joke. We're trying to establish whether there actually was a ghost, not just something a bit like a ghost but with a natural explanation. Reliability does not equal infallibility.

You can't pretend supernatural claims are the same as natural ones. In a courtroom we hear about things which we at least know are possible. Not so with supernatural things. So equivocation fallacy, I'm afraid.

You say there is more evidence. Evidence for what? You're trying to establish the credibility of the witnesses, I get it. What I'm saying is I don't care how credible they are, why should I accept supernatural claims from them? I wouldn't from anyone else, not even my wife. I am not saying they are even lying. I'm conceding for the sake of argument that they are telling the truth about what they believed happened. But that doesn't mean that it actually happened. So yes, you're just arbitrarily deciding to believe what they believe. What else are you doing?

It's my contention that this is an impossible gap to bridge. To give me a reason why I should believe what someone else believes, when they talk about something I have no reason to believe is even possible, requires a logical fallacy. I identified the equivocation fallacy above. Would you like to try again?

I will, but not tonight. 

One more question though: Are supernatural things possible?

[robvalue]

OK cool I look forward to the next attempt.

To your question, I don't know. They may be possible, they may not. I don't know if the supernatural exists or not. I've written about my stance on this on my website:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!the-sci...thod/c1mtx

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!natural...tural/czy5

I'm not even saying the events didn't happen, I have no need to. I'm saying there's not a good reason to believe they did. Without the supernatural stuff, the story is nothing.

[Randy Carson]

I don't know. They may be possible, they may not. I don't know if the supernatural exists or not. I've written about my stance on this on my website:



I'm not even saying the events didn't happen, I have no need to. I'm saying there's not a good reason to believe they did.

Well, I was about to log off, and your reply caught my attention.

Rob, are you saying that IF there was a good reason to believe that a supernatural event occurred, you would be open to that?

[robvalue]

Yes. I'm open to absolutely anything, if it's backed up by appropriate evidence and arguments.

The first thing to do is agree on a definition of what "supernatural" is. I'll use whatever definition you want.

I'm a sceptic, meaning my default position is to reject any claim put to me, until such time as I feel I have sufficient reason to accept it.

The more extraordinary and important the claim, the more convincing the evidence and arguments need to be.

EDIT: I added the links to my website in my post above for much more detail.

[Randy Carson]

Yes. I'm open to absolutely anything, if it's backed up by appropriate evidence and arguments.

I'm a sceptic, meaning my default position is to reject any claim put to me, until such time as I feel I have sufficient reason to accept it.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more convincing the evidence and arguments need to be.

EDIT: I added the links to my website in my post above for much more detail.

Nice site...I like the layout with the trees on the sides...very peaceful.

It's late here...early for you...so, I'm done for the day.

But I'll spend some time on your site to get up to speed on your views, etc. Thanks for sharing it with me.

[robvalue]

You're very welcome, sleep well

Thank you for taking my point of view seriously, not a lot of theists do. And for your feedback about my site! I've designed it to be theist friendly as well as atheist, I hope I've succeeded.

[Pyrrho]

... I'm open to absolutely anything, if it's backed up by appropriate evidence and arguments.

...

My guess is, you have raised his hopes with the first part of that sentence, but you have told him with the second part of the sentence that you are not going to be open to nearly as much as one might guess from just the first part.

There are some ridiculous things that cannot be backed up by "appropriate evidence and arguments," and the set of those things is surprisingly large, which can be seen by considering the various foolish things people actually believe.


The discussion thus far is making me think of David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X "Of Miracles," in which Hume basically argues that it is never reasonable to believe stories of miracles.  You can read it here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341

If you want to discuss it, we can do so privately, or you can start a new thread about it.

[robvalue]

Sure Of course, the first thing is to make a falsifiable claim. Otherwise, there is nothing to investigate. So just saying "this is a miracle" for example, is an unfalsifiable claim. I can't prove it wasn't partly the work of God. But neither can anyone prove it was, or even if it was possible it was; dead end. All they can do is the argument from ignorance, or else demonstrate some way they can actually know anything about the supernatural element. Nice Hume article, thanks

So I agree, unless there is a hole in my logic, any miracle claim (God was involved) is untestable and therefor worthless. No amount of evidence can make any difference until such time as the claim is falsifiable.

By "anything" I mean that I could be wrong about anything, even the above. I'm happy to discuss any section of my thoughts, assumptions and beliefs. So I'm open to being corrected on even my most basic logic if it is wrong. But that of course doesn't mean I just accept I am wrong because someone says so. They need to convince me.

Randy is reading up on my website, so I think he will appreciate the barriers to the supernatural as I see them. If he has a way to try and bridge this, I'll be interested.

I always prefer to say "I don't know" rather than come up with an answer I don't have confidence in. And by saying this, or saying I reject a claim, I'm not saying the claim is wrong.

Sure, we could start a topic on it, if you think there is more to discuss?

[Ravenshire]

Randy,

Here's the issue with your argument. It doesn't fucking matter. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the NT is perfectly preserved in all points, exactly as the original authors intended. It proves nothing about the factual nature of what the text describes.

Let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that 2000 years from now, after a couple cataclysms, there are people worshiping our Lord and Savior, Harry Potter. They have copies of the Holy Septology, an account of the seven most important years of the life of Harry in detail as described by his most humble disciple J.K. Rowling. There has been heretical talk that the Holy Septology may be corrupt. Indeed, talk that it may even contain errors.

You are the guy trying to prove that they do indeed have true and accurate copies of the Holy Septology.

Whether the copies are faithful to the originals is absolutely irrelevant.

[DeistPaladin]

IF there was a good reason to believe that a supernatural event occurred, you would be open to that?

Randy, consider how much evidence you would require if I made one of the follow claims of my lunchtime activity today:

1. I had lunch with my wife.
2. I had lunch with President Obama.
3. I had lunch with my deceased father who's cremated ashes have reconstituted themselves into a body and he's feeling much better now.

When you understand how much more evidence you would require to believe claim #3 over claim #1, you understand how much more evidence we require for Christianity's supernatural claims.