Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Whateverist]

I noticed you missed the threads on the value of testimony.

Except it's testimony corroborated with an audio recording...

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Marilyn testifies to seeing a supernatural entity, while on the audio recording Branham states, and I quote "between you and I stands that light"..

We've reached a point where most people recognize that images can be photoshopped and matching sound effects to a film/video image is yesterday's news.

[Mister Agenda]

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

And if you can't think of it, it must not exist? I can think of five, and I'm no doctor.

[Huggy Bear]

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

That is what we call an argument from ignorance. You not being able to conceive of an answer, doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is valid

Doctors as a rule generally don't state anything with absolute certainty, so what other condition do you think might cause a doctor to state that conceiving a child is an impossibility other than not having a uterus?

---

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

And if you can't think of it, it must not exist? I can think of five, and I'm no doctor.

ok, name them.

[Mister Agenda]

That is what we call an argument from ignorance. You not being able to conceive of an answer, doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is valid

Doctors as a rule generally don't state anything with absolute certainty, so what other condition do you think might cause a doctor to state that conceiving a child is an impossibility other than not having a uterus?

As a rule they don't generally. There are plenty of exceptions. You must recognize that there are doctors who will state their conclusions with certainty, else you wouldn't have used the qualifier 'generally'.

[Huggy Bear]

Misrepresent much?

If you believe that yahoo summons UFOs, do you think this video makes it any better/more probable?

You didn't see the unidentified flying object in the video? The guy was asked to summon a UFO at the place of the news stations choosing, and the video is evidence that he did...

[Whateverist]

Maybe we're just dumbstruck that anyone would seriously think this sort of thing could be persuasive to anyone who hadn't already imbibed plenty of the Koolade.

The point isn't to persuade, it's to start a conversation. You guys repeatedly ask for evidence because you think none exists, You're clearly not equipped to deal with any modicum of evidence that's presented other than deflection.

I've also posted evidence that was tested extensively, and it funny how quick you guys turn on science when it doesn't support your world view.

Actually I think people are really saying they're familiar with the standard of evidence presented by Christianity and remain unimpressed.  In the back and forth it may sound as if someone is challenging you to actually produce any 'evidence' at all, but I don't think that is really where it's at.

In this thread Steve's OP seems to intended to simply shoot down the atheist rejoinder "why then do you reject the evidence for other religions".  But Lady Camus' point that a higher stack of weak evidence isn't really all that impressive, unless you're just determined to believe regardless and desperate for justification.

[Amarok]

You didn't see the unidentified flying object

Yup and it does not prove dick . Let alone anything supernatural.

[Whateverist]

One problem with this entire thread is that comparing Christianity to some other religions isn't an apple-to-apple comparison. Take Buddhism, for example. One could argue that Buddhism might be 'true' in some sense without Siddhartha Gautama ever having existed. We could posit, for the sake of argument, that he is an entirely legendary character, and this claim would in no way speak to the truth or falsehood of the teachings and practice attributed to him. You simply can't do that with Christianity without undercutting the foundations of the movement, which is based on allegedly historical events that fulfilled certain prophesies.

So for purposes of this conversation, are the Buddhist writings (or the writings of Hindu mystics) -- which dwarf the Bible -- to be considered as evidence for the claims made by those religions? I can't speak much to the question of Hindu scripture, but in the case of the Buddhist writings, we have "first hand" testimony of the efficacy of Buddha's teachings and practice by adherents who submitted themselves to the discipline and found enlightenment. It shouldn't matter that much of it was written centuries after Siddhartha allegedly lived, since Buddhism doesn't stand or fall with historical claims or even the actual existence of one man. It's the teachings and practice that matter.

^This^

But you know, the only reason Christianity isn't looked at the same way is that the people who claim to be an authoritative member of one of its countless sects insist on promoting their literalist interpretations.  A legendary Jesus with a message of hippy peace and love is an option not chosen - not one that is impossible.  Hell you could even have a mystical sub-sect which promotes allegorical self-transcendence a la Jesus.

[Amarok]

You guys repeatedly ask for evidence because you think none exists, You're clearly not equipped to deal with any modicum of evidence that's presented other than deflection.

Yup and we never get it. Yes we are . Nope debunking the poor evidence presented

I've also posted evidence that was tested extensively, and it funny how quick you guys turn on science when it doesn't support your world view.

No you have not . Science is not your friend

[Edwardo Piet]

Look, guys, if Steve could recognize valid evidence when he saw it he wouldn't still be Christian.