Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[brewer]

4. Perhaps. But my argument is not if Christianity is compelling, but what is the atheist justified in charging the Christian with.

bold mine

That's easy. Prove to the atheists satisfaction that god exists. Better yet, have god itself prove to the atheist satisfaction that it exists. If it's all powerful, and as you claim (the bible) it's proved it's existence in the past, it should have no problem proving itself now. 

For some unknown reason it does not seem to possess that ability. Why is that?

[Minimalist]

However the point is testimony is the only type of information conveyed to us about historical events.

Wrong.

Josephus, The Jewish War Book VII, Chapter 8, tells of the ramp that Lucius Flavius Silva built to take Masada.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-7.html


Here it is today.



Right where Josephus said it was.

[Harry Nevis]

If that is supposed to be an argument in favor of your claims, it's an argument from ignorance. And you know what that's worth. 'Maybe there's evidence that would back me up but it's lost' is something I would never say, because, frankly, it's pitiful. [1]


What do you imagine rebuttal evidence would look like? [2] Pliny saying 'I heard there were no dead people walking around Jerusalem the other day'? Without corroboration, all you've got are assertions and claims; and they're in the form of hearsay, to boot.


In the thread on testimony as evidence, I maintained that testimony alone is not evidence at all, but an assertion or claim. There may be elements within the testimony that make it more or less plausible, and there may be other testimony it can be compared to that allow us to evaluate the plausibility better. That analysis can be evidence, but the testimony in itself is exactly what you are trying to determine the truth of. For mundane claims of little consequence, we usually take people at their word, because it makes living with each other easier and usually doesn't matter. You're not making a mundane claim of little consequence though, are you? [3]


More is not necessarily better. One verifiable miracle that accomplishes the physically impossible would be worth more than the entire Bible plus the entire history of all Abrahamic religions in establishing the existence of the supernatural. [4]

1. I am not making any argument about what the evidence concludes. I was undercutting your argument that there would be 3rd party evidence. 
2. Could be anything related to the events in question (i.e. nope--I was there). In fact it could be anything that would support an alternate theory (i.e. someone that reconsidered their part in the conspiracy when things got serious). 
3. I understand your point about evidence. However the point is testimony is the only type of information conveyed to us about historical events. To dismiss it entirely is not a tenable solution because you would have toss out billions of things we believe to be true about history. If you are going the route of the testimony of the NT contains miracles and is therefore an exception, then you are begging the question. For those following along, it would be question begging because you would be saying the testimony of miracles is not true because miracles can't happen--setting up a circular argument that never allows for the possibility of a miracle. 
4. The people of the NT claim they verified the miracles. I choose (because of a cumulative case for Christianity) to take them at their word. I don't think believing those that claimed to have verified is unreasonable--especially since there is no evidence to weigh against them.

Unless you are using an extremely broad definition of "testimony", there are many sources of information we can gather about historical events. And we may, as time goes on, dismiss and revise much of what is considered history.  That's the strength of the scientific method, and the weakness of religion. And I disagree with your begging the question comment.  Saying that the testimony of miracles is evidence of christianity is assuming the validity of miracles.  As there have been no miracles proven to have occurred, it would be begging the question, as I understand it. But, as you said, it's all a matter of opinion whether you believe your evidence leads to your conclusions.  There is nothing that makes an objective person look at it and logically deduce that the bible is a true story.  You believe because you want to believe, just like everyone else who believes.

[Amarok]

And more evidence against Huggies silly narrative

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-placebo-narrative/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/can-the...-the-body/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo...ditioning/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-pla...-stronger/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/bait-an...e-studies/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/spin-ci...nd-asthma/

You just acknowledged that the placebo effect is real, so what "silly narrative" are you trying to debunk?

For fuck sake read the articles then relate them to you original post .

---

You should buy yourself Ben Goldacre's Bad Science he delves into placebo quite deeply in an engaging and accessible way.

Added to my reading list.  Thanks!

Read it .It's really good .

[Crossless2.0]

4. Perhaps. But my argument is not if Christianity is compelling, but what is the atheist justified in charging the Christian with.

bold mine

That's easy. Prove to the atheists satisfaction that god exists. Better yet, have god itself prove to the atheist satisfaction that it exists. If it's all powerful, and as you claim (the bible) it's proved it's existence in the past, it should have no problem proving itself now. 

For some unknown reason it does not seem to possess that ability. Why is that?

Oh, oh, oh! I know this one!

Something, something about not tempting the Lord your God, the value of faith, blessed are those who believe without having seen, etc., etc.

You know, the stuff contained in that book of "evidence".

[Minimalist]

Haven't been paying attention have you? I've presented evidence...

No, you haven't.  You uncritically put forward any delusional shit you like as long as it tells you what you want to fucking hear.  And then, you think it is evidence.

It isn't.

[brewer]

bold mine

That's easy. Prove to the atheists satisfaction that god exists. Better yet, have god itself prove to the atheist satisfaction that it exists. If it's all powerful, and as you claim (the bible) it's proved it's existence in the past, it should have no problem proving itself now. 

For some unknown reason it does not seem to possess that ability. Why is that?

Oh, oh, oh! I know this one!

Something, something about not tempting the Lord your God, the value of faith, blessed are those who believe without having seen, etc., etc.

You know, the stuff contained in that book of "evidence".

What a lame and pitiful excuse.

[Amarok]

So huggies evidence is some light that could have come from anywhere showed up on the film . And that proves angels exist .

[Crossless2.0]

So huggies evidence is some light that could have come from anywhere showed up on the film . And that proves angels exist .

It's essentially the same quality of evidence that led old Malcolm Muggeridge to lose his mind over Mother Theresa -- a trick of the light on a piece of film in "Something Beautiful for God".

[Simon Moon]

3. I understand your point about evidence. However the point is testimony is the only type of information conveyed to us about historical events. To dismiss it entirely is not a tenable solution because you would have toss out billions of things we believe to be true about history. If you are going the route of the testimony of the NT contains miracles and is therefore an exception, then you are begging the question. For those following along, it would be question begging because you would be saying the testimony of miracles is not true because miracles can't happen--setting up a circular argument that never allows for the possibility of a miracle. 

Ah, so you are clueless about the historical method too. Thanks for clarifying your ignorance.

For a large majority of people that are considered historical, we have things like: texts penned by them, texts penned by their enemies, coins with their images, towns named after them, contemporaneous historians reporting about them, etc.

Anything like that for your god boy?

4. The people of the NT claim they verified the miracles. I choose (because of a cumulative case for Christianity) to take them at their word. I don't think believing those that claimed to have verified is unreasonable--especially since there is no evidence to weigh against them.

How do you know that the stories in the Bible of the people verifying miracles, are accurate? After all, they weren't written for a generation or more after the alleged events, by unknown authors.

There are 1000's of people alive today, that sincerely believe they were abducted by aliens. You can personally interview them. They are not reporting hearsay.

Do you believe they were actually abducted by aliens? I'm not saying they are lying, only that they may be misinterpreting some other experience.