Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

1.  The quantity of eyewitness testimony would not be a category difference. It would simply be justification to treat the two claims/information differently.

Why?  I'm still waiting for you to back this up rather than simply declare it so.  Why is the fact that Christianity has a larger quantity of alleged eyewitness testimony, including other people's testimony about that alleged eyewitness testimony, a justification to treat it differently?

It is obvious that more is better. 

Now that you have supporting information, the circumstances between Joe and Jesus widens considerably.

What we have from religions in general is stories about unverifiable supernatural claims, and in the case of Chrisrianity, stories about those stories about unverifiable supernatural claims.  I fail to see how that distinguishes it as special or inherently different from rest.

Now in addition to more, you have different kinds (categories) of information (refer to letters a through k below for the different kinds of information). Other religions don't have other kinds of information to consider to support the initial (often singular) claim. 

Because the circumstances being considered are no longer similar, there can be no special pleading to believe one with more information and not the other.

So, you seem to be implying that because the Bible contains more testimony within its pages, this somehow makes the case for Christianity stronger than other religions.  I mentioned as much in one of my previous posts and you chastised me for going off topic, but there you are asserting just that to Mathilda.  If you're suggesting that what distinguishes Christianity from other religions is that it's more likely to be true, then you're essentially arguing in big a circle.  Especially considering we don't even agree on your terms of eyewitness testimony counting as evidence in the first place.

Yes, and more specifically the list of points in letters a through k below. There is absolutely no circular arguments because again, there is a list of reasons to infer the conclusion. 

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them. 
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

So it's not actual evidence that convinces you.  Reasoning gymnastics is required.  I believe the supernatural claims in The Bible are true because the characters in the Bible say they are.  Got it.

Evidence/facts/information along can never convince anyone of anything. It will always need the application of reasoning as to the conclusion. 

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

Such as?

Off topic and I don't have time.

---

Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification. We know a large number of people believed the same as the assertions (not because of them) -more verification.

You can't simply claim special pleading.  Illustrate how there are similar circumstances in some other religion. Back up your argument.

Nope.  Right in your OP is your claim that Christianity is inherently different from all other religions, and as such, not subject to special pleading.  The burden of proof is yours, and after sixty some odd pages, you've demonstrated nothing except your willingness to lie and question-beg in the name of the lord.  Bravo.

Setting aside the obnoxious tone, you are 100% wrong. I have offered examples of why Christianity is different in both quantity and category of information. If you think there is still special pleading, you simply don't understand the meaning of special pleading. Where am I question begging--or is that another term you don't quite understand?

[SteveII]

"Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Millions of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  Yet, no one actually believes he removed it from our plane of existence.  Multiple people can testify to some event, and still be wrong.  How can you not grasp this basic idea?

Of course multiple people can testify to the same event and still be wrong. So, I grasp the basic idea. Until you find an example of something that has the kind of context I listed in my a through k points, they are irrelevant--apples and oranges.

---

"Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Millions of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  Yet, no one actually believes he removed it from our plane of existence.  Multiple people can testify to some event, and still be wrong.  How can you not grasp this basic idea?

"Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Steve is smart enough to know this statement is patently false.  He would never let that fly going the other way around.  He's desperately trying to breathe life into an argument that was more or less DOA.  Old Billy Lane Craig would be proud.

You and your definitions. Verification is not an exact synonym for proof. I highlighted the relevant words:

ver·i·fi·ca·tion
ˌverəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
   "the verification of official documents"
   synonyms:
   confirmation, substantiation, proof, corroboration, support, attestation, validation, authentication, endorsement
   "they may require further verification"
   

[RoadRunner79]

---

It seems that the conversation has been directed towards a pitting of Paul's experience to Joseph Smith's.  And it seems that we also are not allowed to allow any other evidence in (which seems like a dishonest tactic to me.)  It's also a misrepresentation;  no one, that I know of is basing Christianity on the appearance of Jesus to Paul.  It explains Paul's sudden change in direction, and also fulfills the criteria for him to be an apostle, but you could remove this account, and you would still have Christianity.  This is because Paul came after the Gospels had already been told, and churches already existed throughout the land.  This is because the Apostles and disciples who had seen the resurrected Jesus founded Churches based on what they had seen.  The evidence isn't just Paul's experience on the way to Damascus.  But the experience of a number of people, some of which is recorded in the historical account of the Gospels.  
It seems like poeple want to just compare the one account (of Paul) and base the arguments only on that because it is easier to knock down (in other words they are attacking a straw man).

<much snipped for focus>

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/inv...six-steps/

---

My bold.
This is a seriously good read, although I seriously doubt you'll read it.
Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus pdf

Why do you doubt that I would read it? I like this article (actually a fan of most of what I have read from Kruger). It also seems to support what I have been saying on the matter, and my basic assessment of Ehrman and the issue.

[Rhondazvous]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

---

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

---

I do not know of any religion that offers eyewitness testimony, so according to your own definition of the word, christian evidence is as non existent as your god. Whatever some may say, accepting something that doesn't exist is delusion.

[VeganLucifer666]

no theirs nothing to back it up, except a silly man writing a book on deluded thoughts

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not actually the magic book of deluded thoughts backing any religion up.  As sixty pages of incompetence shows us; it's the beliefs of the deluded backing up the magic book.

[Astonished]

Your definition of evidence is too restrictive (therefore incorrect). You need it to be completely synonymous with proof and it is not.  I have highlighted the relevant words:

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms:
   proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"
   

And since nothing you provide does DICK to indicate whether a proposition is true or valid, your definition here only hurts your case, jacktard.

[Harry Nevis]

You are question begging (miracles can't happen therefore there is no believable testimony of miracles). Not trying to convince anyone of anything. Atheist notoriously misunderstand the thing they feel so confident about--Christianity isn't true. I'm doing my part to correct that.

---

No, that's not question begging.

---

LadyForCamus
[quote pid='1621581' dateline='1505640751']
lol, what?!  What the hell kind of logic is that?  You know that isn't remotely true, Steve.  So, if I accept the testimony of the folks who believe the Mandela effect is caused by parallel universes overlapping with ours, then I have evidence that supports that conclusion?  This is low even for you.  Is there a reason you skipped over responding to me, btw?  Just curious.

---

Once again, Steve has done a fine job of arguing himself over to the opposing position, lol.

Do you have reasons to believe these people? If you do, then you have evidence. Not proof, evidence. You have a real hangup on defining evidence don't you. Your confidence in your definition is misplaced. I will look back and see what I missed from you.
[/quote]

So anyone can decide what is evidence?  What reasons do you have to believe these people?  We have reasons not to believe them, so, is it evidence for you but not for us? Evidence is subjective? Isn't that what we've arguing about all along?  If you think if it's just the reader's opinion that X is or is not evidence for Y, then the word evidence has no objective meaning.

[KevinM1]

"Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Millions of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  Yet, no one actually believes he removed it from our plane of existence.  Multiple people can testify to some event, and still be wrong.  How can you not grasp this basic idea?

Of course multiple people can testify to the same event and still be wrong. So, I grasp the basic idea. Until you find an example of something that has the kind of context I listed in my a through k points, they are irrelevant--apples and oranges.

---

"Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Steve is smart enough to know this statement is patently false.  He would never let that fly going the other way around.  He's desperately trying to breathe life into an argument that was more or less DOA.  Old Billy Lane Craig would be proud.

You and your definitions. Verification is not an exact synonym for proof. I highlighted the relevant words:

ver·i·fi·ca·tion
ˌverəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
   "the verification of official documents"
   synonyms:
   confirmation, substantiation, proof, corroboration, support, attestation, validation, authentication, endorsement
   "they may require further verification"
   

Third synonym, Steve... LMFAO

---

And no, Steve, it's not apples and oranges just because it torpedoes your argument. It's your job to meet the burden of proof. Everything in your argument hinges on the supernatural aspects of the story being true. Appeals to testimony and popularity don't lend truth to supernatural claims. It's just a distraction from the main problem you have - there's no way to prove the parts that make Jesus special actually happened. There's a million and one reasons to believe they didn't happen (physics, biology, how much his story comports to those of other myths, lack of independent, unbiased 3rd party accounts of these miracles, etc) and not one good reason to believe any of it is true, despite your desperate contortions.

Again, people believe things that aren't true all the time. In your eyes, Islam is likely full of such people. Guess what? You're no different. Also: Santa isn't real.

[I_am_not_mafia]

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

You are cherry picking. Your argument assigns some likelihood or probability of an inference based on incomplete data. You weren't there so you are looking at some of the available evidence and judging the probability of it being correct. But you aren't also taking into account other facts that are at odds with your hypothesis. Probably because you are ignorant of the implications if it were all true.

For example the likelihood of the miracles taking place is really small based on what else we know. What exactly would be required for Jesus to turn water into wine, walk on water, heal a blind man by spiting into his eyes, healing a severed ear etc. These miracles affected the physical world and so therefore had to be constrained by physics at least to some extent. The molecules involved needed to be sensed, processed and rearranged somehow, e.g. all the water molecules being tuned into wine. What was the power source and physical mechanisms used to enact these miracles? If you can't answer this then your argument is one of ignorance because it relies on you not being able to explain things.

There are also plenty of historical inaccuracies that you are not taking into account, which should also reduce the probability of it being true. For example the zombie outbreak described in Matthew 27:52 was not recorded elsewhere by any historians. Herod's killing of every two year old male child etc. The fact that the written accounts differ quite significantly. Loads more historical inaccuracies here

When you take it all into account, the most likely explanation is that if it wasn't completely made up, then the eye witnesses were wrong. People raised from the dead weren't actually dead but in a coma and Jesus recognised this. When Jesus walked on water then it was an illusion because he had placed large stones to step on under the surface and stuck the severed ear back on the servant's head using a sticky substance and people didn't hang around to see it shrivel up and wither.

You are not taking into account all possible explanations and choosing one that is actually completely unreasonable to make because it's what you want to believe.