Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Amarok]

Why don't you guys just be honest and admit that you would never accept any miraculous event no matter how well sourced?

Why would I admit to something I don't believe?

But what won't accept is the garbage you present as well sourced when it's anything but . By actual historic standards. Not the watered down crap that makes up biblical studies.

---

Why don't you guys just be honest and admit that you would never accept any miraculous event no matter how well sourced?

-is there any "miraculous event" that you won't accept, no matter how poorly sourced?

Honestly, you just seem frustrated.  I get it, no one will believe you, and you're super sure that magic book is really true.  My kids get pissy when I won;t believe in their imaginary friends too.  

The religious are obsessed with needing other people to believe them . And are angry that doubt is on the rise.

[SteveII]

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.

Setting aside the fact that if you claim there is no evidence, I should not have to answer these because you would have thoroughly evaluated these things in support of your claim that there is no evidence, it has been requested that I answer this more fully.

1. 27 books plus Q, possibly L and M as well. The fact that we don't know who wrote 3-4 of them does not mean what you think it means. Of course the recipients would have known the exact provenance of each. In the case of the three gospels, the people who copied the manuscripts for distribution only felt the need to record whose information was contained in the document (Matthew, Mark, John) and not the guy with the pen. Luke was not a disciple and intended to "write an orderly account" in Luke and Acts. If you want actual eyewitnesses with their names on the books, John, Peter, and James.
2. The churches believed the main facts about Jesus prior to the gospels and Paul's letters. This is evidence for the events in Acts way before Luke/Acts was written--which is 27% of the NT.
3. Context, context, context. In 60 years of these people's life following the resurrection of Jesus, no one diverted from their intended goals, never changed their mind/message ( even when it was not in their best interest), never contradicted themselves or each other in any substantive way, nothing to raise a red flag. That is quite a feat and is evidence of their conviction as to the truth of what they witnessed. 
4. That is the question now isn't it.
5. You ignored the other points in that sentence. Did Harry Potter seem to describe the human condition? We find a unique message, dovetailing with the OT, and fulfilling prophecy in a totally unexpected way--but in hindsight in a better way. 
6. Why isn't Paul exactly who he said he was? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What information do you have that affects Paul negatively in any way? The churches and the next generation of Christians honored and preserved his writings.
7. No, theories have explanatory power to explain the evidence we have. That is not what you are proposing. You are throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks because other people have told you there is no evidence.
8. See 1. Applying appropriate standards for first century documents, what we have is paleographic gold. 
9. Eyewitnesses is all you get prior to electronic recording. It is a thoroughly unreasonable position to dismiss it--hyperskepticism. 
10. I can't find a point in there that needs a response.

[Astonished]

Why don't you guys just be honest and admit that you would never accept any miraculous event no matter how well sourced?

If that is your mentality, you are well and truly fucking hopeless. Do not breed.

[Amarok]

Oh goody curly (steve II )in the apologist three stooges appears to basically repeat a great deal of nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. 27 books plus Q, possibly L and M as well. The fact that we don't know who wrote 3-4 of them does not mean what you think it means. Of course the recipients would have known the exact provenance of each. In the case of the three gospels, the people who copied the manuscripts for distribution only felt the need to record whose information was contained in the document (Matthew, Mark, John) and not the guy with the pen. Luke was not a disciple and intended to "write an orderly account" in Luke and Acts. If you want actual eyewitnesses with their names on the books, John, Peter, and James.

"Well, I;ve got this book...see...."

2. The churches believed the main facts about Jesus prior to the gospels and Paul's letters. This is evidence for the events in Acts way before Luke/Acts was written--which is 27% of the NT.

Which churches, the one that survived or the many that were violently snuffed out?  How convenient for them, that they just so happened to believe in the right version of the story before they decided what version that was.

3. Context, context, context. In 60 years of these people's life following the resurrection of Jesus, no one diverted from their intended goals, never changed their mind/message ( even when it was not in their best interest), never contradicted themselves or each other in any substantive way, nothing to raise a red flag. That is quite a feat and is evidence of their conviction as to the truth of what they witnessed. 

Well, except for all the ones they had to kill for being heretics...obviously

4. That is the question now isn't it.

Not really, it;s not like anyone knows what jesus claims were, if there was a jesus..as opposed to silly shit crammed into "god's" mouth.

5. You ignored the other points in that sentence. Did Harry Potter seem to describe the human condition? We find a unique message, dovetailing with the OT, and fulfilling prophecy in a totally unexpected way--but in hindsight in a better way. 

OFC it describes the human condition, that;s why it's so damned successful........this is something that the two have in common, for reasons you will refuse to consider.

6. Why isn't Paul exactly who he said he was? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What information do you have that affects Paul negatively in any way? The churches and the next generation of Christians honored and preserved his writings.

"Paul" is innocent of the crime of having ever existed, just like jesus, does that count?

7. No, theories have explanatory power to explain the evidence we have. That is not what you are proposing. You are throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks because other people have told you there is no evidence.

It would be alot more difficult to maintain that statement if any of you, in all of recorded history and christendom, had ever managed to come up with any.

8. See 1. Applying appropriate standards for first century documents, what we have is paleographic gold. 

Conveniences abound..I;m sure the "appropriate" standards are whatever you might find amenable to fairy tales.

9. Eyewitnesses is all you get prior to electronic recording. It is a thoroughly unreasonable position to dismiss it--hyperskepticism. 

That's ridiculous.  It's as if archaeology doesn't exist in your world. It's as if anthropology doesn't exist in your world. You see, it;s not just your embarrassing inability to present any sort of evidence for your case...ordinary or extraordinary...it's the fact that all evidence converges -against- the claim, from absolutely every field of inquiry. It;s one of those things that...were it not for your deeply held beliefs and the continued survival of the tradition...two things that feature heavily even in your own rationalizations...no one would even be arguing it. When's the last time an apologist showed up to tell us we were all wrong about zeus...ala- "Well, I've got this book....see"? You certainly wouldn't be interested in being-that- guy, and somehow, I don't think you'd find him very convincing, -if- you could manage to take him seriously..........

Thing is, you're that guy.

[SteveII]

First, I think if there is a God you can reasonably assume that at some point he would reveal himself. Not just say "hey, I'm here" but to give some sort of reason or purpose for the existence we are experiencing. I think this is done in a several ways in this specific order:

1. Natural Theology (theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation)
2. Revealed Theology (theology based on what God has directly revealed about himself). The OT is full of interactions from which we can derive information.
3. Appearing in the Person of Christ. These are the events of the gospels--resulting in atonement for sin which resulted in the possibility of a one-on-one relationship with God. 
4. Personal Witness. The final revelation of God is within the context of the personal relationship promised in the NT. 

The four points build on the previous and become more focused. That is why the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

Second, I don't think that the doctrine of divine inspiration (God guiding the mind of the writer) is necessary here. All of the above could be accomplished without it. Using inspiration in an argument is just question begging. Rather it is a useful doctrine to discuss after the basics are already believed/established.

So...you're using your book to answer questions about your book, lol.  Got it.

The question I was answering is how do we know about God. I don't really see how your non-discussion, peanut-gallery-level comment applies.

[RoadRunner79]

We have thousands of people contemporaneously discussing Washington, painting him, voting for him.

Those are all part of the claim not evidence.

Sounds like just one story also.

I do like when they say their own arguments are ridiculous.

[SteveII]

... the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

I'm not so sure about that. I would say that what we have is sufficient but there is always more to know.

My point is that any further revelation is on a personal level. I do not think there is a further 'big reveal' from God until the second coming (prophets delivering messages, inspired texts, further general revelation, etc.)

[Astonished]

So...you're using your book to answer questions about your book, lol.  Got it.

The question I was answering is how do we know about God. I don't really see how your non-discussion, peanut-gallery-level comment applies.

The question you were failing to answer, is actually answered by "We don't. It's almost certainly made up."

Look, dipshit, I'm getting sick to death of your repetitious, thoughtless responses. Natural theology is a load of absolute donkey shit. Naturalism is just about what's here, not what's 'beyond' and nothing, NOT A GODDAMN BUTTFUCKING THING in nature suggests there even is anything beyond. Your mental defects are the only thing making you think there are, or MUST BE. Seek help.

Your revealed theology not only does not build upon the last point, it tears it down even further. Naturalism proves beyond any doubt that the scriptures are complete fabrications and the products of the sun-baked, tiny, primitive minds of stone-age goatfuckers. Try reading something else and find as many fuck-ups as the bible. I dare you.

Appearing in the person of...someone we don't even know existed and absolutely certainly did not exist as described. What the fuck makes you think any of this supports the rest? Did your mom pull a Forrest Gump thing to get you into class with normal kids when you shouldn't have been?

Personal witn...fucking hell, how old are you? Every last one of these fucking points can be chalked up to a fucking schizophrenic delusion, and lest we forget, those promises made in the NT have largely failed to come true, beyond what could be done by human hands and not a damn thing about the divine.

What the hell, literally, what in the fucking hell is wrong with you? How is your mind capable of being this backward?

[SteveII]

30 pages in, and still all we have to discuss is magic book?  That's not extraordinary evidence, it;s not even ordinary evidence..it's remains as it always has been, no evidence.

That's right. The book is the claim, not the evidence.

There's a term for logic that asserts that the claim is the evidence; it's called circular reasoning.

You are wrong. The Claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. The gospels catalog the claim. Acts gives researched historical data about the early church. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim. A second point on this simplistic understanding: The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim

There is also plenty of secondary and tertiary evidence I began to touch on above.