Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

Steve, you're my new favorite theist, on here.... well.... after CL, of course!

1. Documents. Such as the 27 in the NT. Some relating events, others expounding on the beliefs that these events precipitated. Most scholars think there were even earlier documents that Paul and the gospel writers had available to them. 

Well... there were even earlier beliefs... much much earlier... even before the god of Abraham showed up. And some even have supporting documents! Shouldn't these earlier tales be much more trustworthy? much closer to the original presentation of god to mankind?

And of course, it is relatively easy to expand pre-existing belief into something larger, or broader. That ignorant people believed the tales is not very amazing... look around - how many people in this world are believing tales from a different religion? Both can't be true.

2. Not what I meant by churches. I mean the Christian groups found in various cities throughout the Roman empire prior to Paul's writings (starting in 50AD). He wrote to many of them and referred to others.

Were they really christian groups? Or Essene groups? Do the Essenes feature in the Bible?
Care to speculate on why the religious group that exists on or near Jerusalem and that is the most similar in philosophy to Christianity does not feature in the Christian holy book?

3. How much of what we have is fiction? Are there actual reasons to think this is so? 

All religions make similar claims... they can't all be right.
At best, only one can be right... all are fiction, except maybe (and this is a big maybe) one.
Is there any reason to think the NT is not fiction? It has some historical figures and locations right?... well, may I counter with Harry Potter who lives in London, UK?... or maybe Sherlock Holmes? Poirot? no?... How about Siper-man in New York? Socrates in Athens?

4. All claims are written down. The gospel editors certainly had access to eyewitnesses, other documents in existence at the time, and well within the period that any number of rebuttal witnesses could have come forward. Further, the editors were not coldly relating some facts they heard to let the reader make up their own mind. They were attesting to the truthfulness of the content of their books. 

In those days, the land was big. Populations didn't intermingle like they do now. You were very unlikely to ever go more than 20 or 30km away from the place where you were born. But some people did travel and spread wonderful tales from yonder. Some would believe the tales and retell them.... some (I hazard to guess, most) would remain believing whatever they had been taught to believe before that.

I do often wonder why were there still jews, after the whole of Jerusalem witnessing the rise of Jesus and other dead and buried people... one would expect the whole population of that city to not only believe, but totally devote to the thing.... however... that didn't happen, did it?
It's like the gospel stories are all disconnected from one another and from the lives of people. That certainly puts a dent in their believability as accounts of actual events... and strengthens the likelihood of it being fiction.

5. Are the words attributed to Jesus part of the fiction/myth theory or the conspiracy theory? How about his claims? He didn't just talk about being nice. He claimed to be God and be the only way by which we can be saved from judgement--a unique formula never seen before on earth. 

I wouldn't be so sure it had never been seen on Earth... do you have evidence of that?

As for what is claimed to have been said... meh... It is very likely that someone did say some of those things, and that some others are fiction. If they were all said by the same person is unknown. The Jesus of the gospels does seem to be a tapestry of different people, doesn't he?

6. No. 

Well, you would learn something about actual history if you read it.
Reality is seldom as simple as it is presented.

7. Name one credible scholar that does not believe in a literal Jesus. In the meantime:

You are aware of the difference between the "historical Jesus" (the one that scholars accept existed) and the Jesus of the gospels, yes?
This historical Jesus may not even have lived in the 1st century, but well before. It seems most of the message already existed some 2 centuries prior.... by none other than the Teacher of Righteousness.

8. I'm not clear on what you are claiming. Paul invented Christianity?

Paul was certainly the greatest influence in shaping present-day Christianity. Read that book.

1. No, earlier is not better. If God revealed himself in the person of Jesus, then that is the best source of information. Other religions are less evidenced than Christianity. You are describing people having faith without evidence. I am describing faith with evidence. 

2. No Essenses. Read Paul's letters. Just about every letter starts with agreeing with/referring to their beliefs. 

3. No, they cannot all be right. Only one or none. The NT is clearly not meant to be fiction and there is no explanation for the large number of believers that appeared before any of the books we have were written.

4. This is more theories that are not supported by the evidence or does not explain the evidence. The teachings of Jesus and his being the messaih were 180 degrees the opposite direction of what the Jews beleived. 

5. There is no evidence anywhere that the message of redemption and restoration of a relationship with God was not unique. 

7. Sure, it has to do with standards of evidence. You cannot deny that Jesus existed. You might find that the other evidence is not compelling. The Teacher of Righteousness=Jesus is not a thing with reputable scholars.

8. Well, to have a Paul, you needed Jesus. So...I would have to go with Jesus being the greater influence overall (especially since there were churches throughout the empire prior to Paul.

---

There is one last thing I wish to say in this thread. Why does Steve not put other religions to the same three "tests" he subjects christianity to. Why does he not apply his pseudo-Bayesian equation to Nordic paganism, why does he not use the same "the claims are so out there that those who made them couldn't possibly have lied" to the claims made about Vishnu (whic are equally as fantastic as those made about Jesus), and why does he not accept the weight of numbers argument to accept the truth of the claim for Mohammed's  night journey?

Because when it comes to religiouns he doesn't believe he uses the same tools we do to dispassionately evaluate them and logically conclude's they don't represent reality. What when applied to the new testament is hyper-pseudo-sceptical becomes only right and proper when applied to the qu'ran or the bhagavad ghita.

Because there is not evidence for these other religions in which to examine!!!!!!

Go ahead, give me some specific evidence for any of your examples and I will walk you through it.

[Harry Nevis]

That's not true at all.  I am not making any claims.  I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay as evidence for the theist claim that god exists.  

Two things about that:

1. Most of the NT is not hearsay. John, Peter and James were eyewitnesses. Paul never related the events of Jesus' life. It is not necessarily true that 
2. Hearsay is evidence. So what you are saying is "I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay [evidence] as evidence..." 

So, you are making claims regarding the evidence that is not hearsay and you reject the hearsay evidence without reason (so you say)--in spite of accepting it in every other ancient historical account ever. 

1. You claim they were eyewitnesses.  Prove it.
2. It may be evidence, but it advances your claim not one bit.

[SteveII]

Generally if you want people to believe your extraordinary claims, then yes--you do need extraordinary evidence.  And the bible is NOT evidence. [1] The number of people believing it is NOT evidence. [2] The bible is the one making the claim (and I might add nobody knows who wrote the bible.  Nobody even knows anything about the people who wrote the bible, except for what they themselves wrote.  Which makes it not just an extraordinary claim, but a dubious one at that.  Here people are putting their trust in an unknown author of unknown origins, from which they know nothing about except what the author themselves has said about themselves.)  [3] The people believing the claim are the ones that accept it--but aren't evidence themselves. [4]

All you're essentially saying is that you don't need extraordinary evidence for your claim, because a lot of people agree with you, and atheists can just shove it.  If that's what you're saying, instead of typing a wall of text, just say "Fuck off Atheists.  God is real!"  You might as well.  It'll be just as convincing, and more honest than the bullshit of trying to spin logic in such a way logic is not meant to be spun. [5]

1. Here is a recap on the evidence we have:

- Documentary--books, letters (both actual and inferred-by careful textual examination)
- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do). The point is, it is not as simple as saying "there is no evidence" There are layers upon layers of evidence that one person or another will find somewhere between uninteresting to compelling.

2. I agree

3. We know quite well who wrote most of the NT. The books that we are unsure of, at least we know what group they came from. That is NOT to say the people who first started copying these texts did not know where they came from. In addition, the books we do not know NOW exactly who wrote them, they agree with and compliment the others. 

4 Except the eyewitnesses that wrote books/letters like John/Peter/James and the other eyewitnesses mentioned all throughout Luke and Acts (which was written specifically as a investigative account) that interacted with Paul and the churches.

5. I am not trying to spin anything. I am discussing a premise that there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

[Astonished]

Steve-O, you have a horribly uneducated view of this entire structure of argument. Go read a real book before you post anything else.

[RoadRunner79]

This.

I'd honestly like to hear Steve (or anyone liking Steve's posts) to address this.

Well, I cannot speak for Steve, but in my own case I think people need to look at the type of literature containing miracle accounts. Works of mythological or allegorical literature describe vague seemingly timeless settings and begin with phrases like "a long time ago in a gallexy far, far away...once upon a time" or even "in the beginning" like in Genesis. The Vedic texts, Sutras, and so-called Gnostic gospels are pretty much all like this. The canonical gospels are very different. They mention specific times and places using the narrative conventions of the period similar to Plutarch. The Pauline epistles are letters on par with other similar types of functional documents produced at around the same time. As such, the miracles found in the NT are presented to us as historical events, with the Resurrection in particular being prominently mentioned from in multiple places.

As for me I have no bias against the supernatural as such, so I see no reason to automatically rule them out simply because they are miraculous.

I think that this is at times neglected by some, in making comparisons. There is the context of the writer, and those who received the writing and how they viewed the document (as well as when). This is why I don't put much into the comparisons to stories that are regarded as fiction. It's making a statement, not an argument. For someone who wished to argue against the modern mythology of evolution , it's not sufficient to just make a comparison to science fiction. I agree, that most examples cannot be equated with the New Testament in this regard. The context and history are just not the same. And when it comes down to it, I think that with most who are willing to discuss, it will come down to an a priori rejection because of the content (miracles), rather than a historical reason for the rejection of parts or all of the text.

Somewhat connected; I did hear an interesting claim the other day. It was either in regard to Gary Habernas or Daniel Wallace, and was reference by another (Cannot remember which although this person does have access to both people). It was also unclear, if this was just an opinion or was actually stated by other scholars. But it was given, that the reason why many scholars try to late date the Gospels, is because of their high Christology and the prior belief that they must be the result of legend. Even with the late dates, it is difficult to attribute legend already (according to studies of how long it takes for legend to replace the facts). While this remark, I don't think was enough to base a firm conclusion on this alone (as I said, it was difficult to tell, if it may just be an opinion) and would require more investigation. I have always asked the question of why the maximum date (usually either a manuscript copy, or a quote by another author who's date of writing is affirmed) is assumed in arguments? Where this only tells us, that the original had to be written at some point prior to the reference or copy. Where as the minimum dates appear to be based more on historical information.

---

You (and others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

An offshoot of Judaism formed around the beginning of the first century AD/last century BC that spoke to the common Jewish person under Roman domination and caught on. The movement was at least partially based on the teachings of an itinerant rabbi known as Yeshua, who was once a follower of John the Baptist. He was a reputed miracle worker, believed to be accompanied by healings wherever he went. There were reports that this holy teacher was conceived out of wedlock, but such a holy man could not possibly have come from the loins of a fallen woman. Some went so far as to call him the Son of God, immaculately conceived. He ran afoul of the Roman authorities, possibly due to the machinations of the Sanhedrin, and was executed. His most devoted followers, the ones who considered him God's direct offspring, couldn't believe he was really dead, that God would allow his son to be killed like that. Soon, there were reports that he was still alive, that hundreds of people had seen him. A movement based on venerating the risen messiah grew over centuries and survives to the present day, though it now faces stiff competition from another religion originating in the Middle East.

I'll let Steve answer; as to his response. I wouldn't have worded the question as he did. My question, is what do you base this conclusion on (without begging the question)? I would think that this type of post-facts approach could be used to re-frame any number of things, and while it may be useful in a culture that want's things tailored to what they already believe, I don't think it is objective.

[Cecelia]

1. Here is a recap on the evidence we have:

[1]- Documentary--books, letters (both actual and inferred-by careful textual examination)
[2]- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
[3]- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
[4]- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
[5]- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
[6]- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
[7]- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.


[8]3. We know quite well who wrote most of the NT. The books that we are unsure of, at least we know what group they came from. That is NOT to say the people who first started copying these texts did not know where they came from. In addition, the books we do not know NOW exactly who wrote them, they agree with and compliment the others. 

[9]4 Except the eyewitnesses that wrote books/letters like John/Peter/James and the other eyewitnesses mentioned all throughout Luke and Acts (which was written specifically as a investigative account) that interacted with Paul and the churches.

[10]5. I am not trying to spin anything. I am discussing a premise that there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

1- Which books?  Which letters?  Who wrote them?  What makes them reliable?  There's too many questions.  And from which time period are these books and letters?  How can you possibly authenticate them?

2- Not evidence.  Churches exist.  So what?  So do temples, and mosques, and the Parthenon. 

3- The stated goals of their words are meaningless.  How can you discern their actual goals without knowing anything about the people who originally wrote the texts?  

4- Jesus' claims are just that.  Claims that are themselves unproven.  

5- A lot of books resonate with people.  Harry Potter resonated with me.  Does that mean Harry Potter is true!?  I've been a muggle all this time, and just never realized it I guess.

6- What makes Paul trustworthy?  Why should we trust him?  What do we even know about him, other than what he himself tells us?

7- Here's an alternate theory: People believed all sorts of stuff back then.  People believe all sorts of stuff today.  Some people believe Elvis is still alive.  Does this prove Elvis is actually still alive?

8- No, we don't know who wrote them.  We only know who the church claims wrote them--and who they themselves apparently claimed to be.  But that's all from their own words, nothing from anyone else.  Take Dianetics for example.  We know who wrote Dianetics.  I can tell you it was L. Ron Hubbard, and I can tell you he was a science fiction writer.  I can tell you this without reading Dianetics, and that's why I can trust the information.  It comes from multiple external sources.  Scientologists at the very least can know about L. Ron Hubbard, but nobody can really tell us anything about the supposed authors of the bible, without referring to the bible itself.

9- And what makes those eyewitnesses reliable?  You can't really tell me anything about any of those people without referring to the bible, or referring to something that uses the bible as a source.  Imagine me telling you some guy named Doug 3000 years ago wrote a book that said the earth was made by Turtles.  And two guys named Ted and Steve back him up.  Are you just going to accept their claims?  If not, then you can see why we don't accept your claims.  If so, then I ask you to look up gullible in the dictionary, because last I checked they removed it.

10- Now you're just spinning your spinning.  Extraordinary evidence would certainly be more than some eyewitnesses (which we can neither question, nor know anything about), a really old book that's inspired people, and the fact that we have buildings built in honor of said book.

Here's an example of what would be considered extraordinary evidence:

Jesus says that "Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven."

So... two Christians just need to pray, and cure cancer.  Or end world hunger.  Or do something  extraordinary like that.  It'd be a good start in any case.

[Minimalist]

The sad thing is that Stevie probably really believes the gibberish he wrote is factual.  It is not.  It is akin to a jesus freak's wet dream.  Nice dissection of his bullshit, Cecilia.

[pocaracas]

Steve, you're my new favorite theist, on here.... well.... after CL, of course!


Well... there were even earlier beliefs... much much earlier... even before the god of Abraham showed up. And some even have supporting documents! Shouldn't these earlier tales be much more trustworthy? much closer to the original presentation of god to mankind?

And of course, it is relatively easy to expand pre-existing belief into something larger, or broader. That ignorant people believed the tales is not very amazing... look around - how many people in this world are believing tales from a different religion? Both can't be true.


Were they really christian groups? Or Essene groups? Do the Essenes feature in the Bible?
Care to speculate on why the religious group that exists on or near Jerusalem and that is the most similar in philosophy to Christianity does not feature in the Christian holy book?


All religions make similar claims... they can't all be right.
At best, only one can be right... all are fiction, except maybe (and this is a big maybe) one.
Is there any reason to think the NT is not fiction? It has some historical figures and locations right?... well, may I counter with Harry Potter who lives in London, UK?... or maybe Sherlock Holmes? Poirot? no?... How about Siper-man in New York? Socrates in Athens?


In those days, the land was big. Populations didn't intermingle like they do now. You were very unlikely to ever go more than 20 or 30km away from the place where you were born. But some people did travel and spread wonderful tales from yonder. Some would believe the tales and retell them.... some (I hazard to guess, most) would remain believing whatever they had been taught to believe before that.

I do often wonder why were there still jews, after the whole of Jerusalem witnessing the rise of Jesus and other dead and buried people... one would expect the whole population of that city to not only believe, but totally devote to the thing.... however... that didn't happen, did it?
It's like the gospel stories are all disconnected from one another and from the lives of people. That certainly puts a dent in their believability as accounts of actual events... and strengthens the likelihood of it being fiction.


I wouldn't be so sure it had never been seen on Earth... do you have evidence of that?

As for what is claimed to have been said... meh... It is very likely that someone did say some of those things, and that some others are fiction. If they were all said by the same person is unknown. The Jesus of the gospels does seem to be a tapestry of different people, doesn't he?


Well, you would learn something about actual history if you read it.
Reality is seldom as simple as it is presented.


You are aware of the difference between the "historical Jesus" (the one that scholars accept existed) and the Jesus of the gospels, yes?
This historical Jesus may not even have lived in the 1st century, but well before. It seems most of the message already existed some 2 centuries prior.... by none other than the Teacher of Righteousness.


Paul was certainly the greatest influence in shaping present-day Christianity. Read that book.

1. No, earlier is not better. If God revealed himself in the person of Jesus, then that is the best source of information. Other religions are less evidenced than Christianity. You are describing people having faith without evidence. I am describing faith with evidence. 

That's a mighty IF you got there...

If mankind evolved from unthinking animals (and this is not a mighty if), then at some point in that evolution the concept of god was introduced. How?
Either god presented itself, or it was made up - either through senses or through imagination.
If a god presented itself then clearly such presentation was faulty, given that, by the time we develop writing, there was no hint whatsoever of the original presentation, but there were stories pertaining to other deities... and different stories in different regions! Such faulty presentation automatically tells me those early humans were not dealing with a real god, as we'd define it today.
From this alone, it is reasonable to assume that mankind made up the concept of god. How that may have happened, I'll leave to another speculative thread.

Jesus comes along in a particular city in Israel and quickly churches sprout up in different places... places where Jesus never went.... places that had only access to the tales. People with faith without evidence, only tales. Sure, the message is one that resonates with the poor and oppressed peoples of occupied Roman territories, so it makes sense that it would spread out quickly.

One of the things that keeps surprising me is that believers seem unable to see the big picture. There were people before belief. There were beliefs before gods, there were polytheist religions before monotheist ones came up. This historical sequence is also evidence. Why don't you people factor it in... like... NEVER?!!

2. No Essenses. Read Paul's letters. Just about every letter starts with agreeing with/referring to their beliefs. 

No Essenes?
Paul's tale reeks of Essene. Look at a map, even on Google maps. Look where the road to Damascus is. Note how close it goes to the Essene community's main "base", Qumran.

3. No, they cannot all be right. Only one or none. The NT is clearly not meant to be fiction and there is no explanation for the large number of believers that appeared before any of the books we have were written.

No explanation? I've provided you with one: they were Essenes.
For some undocumented reason, that name must have become taboo or undesirable and the christian moniker became an acceptable replacement.
Feel free to say there is no evidence for this. There isn't... at best, it's circumstantial...

4. This is more theories that are not supported by the evidence or does not explain the evidence. The teachings of Jesus and his being the messaih were 180 degrees the opposite direction of what the Jews beleived. 

Define Jews, here.
There were several diverging sects worshiping Yahweh, the god of Abraham. It is known that at least one of those sects did have a philosophy that was more or less in line with what became the Christian teachings.... can you guess who those were?

---

The Essenes!!

---

5. There is no evidence anywhere that the message of redemption and restoration of a relationship with God was not unique. 

Not exactly what was being addressed...
This is what I was addressing: "He claimed to be God and be the only way by which we can be saved from judgement--a unique formula never seen before on earth. "

A human claiming to be god - Ever heard of a Pharaoh?

The second bit... about judgment... can also be applied to the Pharaohs. People were to worship and obey the Pharaoh... and be judged by him.

7. Sure, it has to do with standards of evidence. You cannot deny that Jesus existed. You might find that the other evidence is not compelling. The Teacher of Righteousness=Jesus is not a thing with reputable scholars.

Let me put it in another way. The historical Jesus could have been some bloke that preached the message that the Teacher of Righteousness had also preached... a message that this Jesus guy decided to expand a bit.
Some of the previously existing mythology surrounding the Teacher would then also get attached to this new figure... a resurrection of that old character, if you will.
How often does Jesus get addressed as Teacher in the NT?

8. Well, to have a Paul, you needed Jesus. So...I would have to go with Jesus being the greater influence overall (especially since there were churches throughout the empire prior to Paul.

And to get Paul on the side of Jesus, you needed a certain roadside conversion... That same road I mentioned above...

[Minimalist]

Yeah... and why was this paul-fucker going to Damascus?  To kidnap xtians and drag them back to Jerusalem?  I'm sure the Roman magistrates thereof would have been fine with that.

What kind of an asshole believes that story?

Oh, right.  Steve.

[LadyForCamus]

That's not true at all.  I am not making any claims.  I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay as evidence for the theist claim that god exists.  

Two things about that:

1. Most of the NT is not hearsay. John, Peter and James were eyewitnesses. Paul never related the events of Jesus' life. It is not necessarily true that

Lol, Steve. THIS is a claim. How do we verify what they say they witnessed is actually what they supposedly witnessed?

2. Hearsay is evidence. So what you are saying is "I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay [evidence] as evidence..."

Hearsay, by itself is pretty flimsy evidence, Steve. A court would never convict a man of rape or murder on hearsay alone. Why then, do you think it, alone, should it be enough to convince me an all-Omni super-God exists?

So, you are making claims regarding the evidence that is not hearsay and you reject the hearsay evidence without reason (so you say)

Without reason? You've read your book, right?

--in spite of accepting it in every other ancient historical account ever.

What historical accounts have I accepted hearsay for, exactly?

[quote]You (and others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

Wha facts from the first century church are you referring to? And why do you think churches are evidence that a god exists?