I would like to review the replies of the non-theists so far to see if a pattern is emerging.
Scrotum Wrote:
Well, considering there is no God, it is not very hard to throw away your claim about a Biblical Correct World. The same people, during this time, as well as in the Bible, assumed the world to be Flat, and standing on pillars etcetera.
Im curious, why do you IGNORE this things, whiles claiming "Truth"??
As I quickly pointed out in my next post, this reply is 100% strawman since it doesn't address the OP at all and it invents supposed "claims" that I made, but didn't.
McCulloch wrote:
...or an extraordinary event requiring the temporary suspension of the physical laws of the universe?
Goose replied
No. The event I have in mind would not in and of itself be considered supernatural as you have described. Though some of the writers attesting to it spoke of the supernatural on occassion and one writer directly attritubutes divine guidence to the event, if I'm not mistaken.
Remember this thread isn't about proving the supernatural or the resurrection or establishing "Extra Ordinary Events Require Extra Ordinary Evidence." It's about applying the often bias and unreasonable demands that skeptics make on Christianity to the rest of history. The IIV principle and other demands placed on Christianity when applied to the rest of history becomes very problematic.
As goose points out, the usual "we don't have to play because it is supernatural" argument isn't a valid one here.
Metatron wrote:
I assume you will eventually discuss the paucity of evidence for Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, but I would think simple logic would suffice. I find it hard to believe that there is not abundant evidence that Julius Caesar campaigned in Gaul prior to his falling out with Pompey Magnus and the Senate. I think it is also established that Caesar did in fact enter Rome with his army to begin the establishment of his dictatorship. Given that the Rubicon was the traditional border between the province of Cisalpine Gaul and Italy, it would seem to be logical to assume a crossing in order to approach Rome. Now if you are asking whether Caesar made the statement "The die is cast" as he crossed the Rubicon to show his inevitable determination to break the time honored tradition against bringing legions into Rome, then you may have a case as this is attributed to him by Suetonius long after the fact.
Here Metatron points out that logic should suffice. this implies that deductive reasoning should be a form of evidence. But wait a sec. . .
This form of evidence is almost 80% of what I personally use. I try not to cut and paste and instead use analysis of what evidence is available. But this method has been shot down by non-theists before by claiming that my analysis is biased. The claim has been made that my analysis isn't enough because it isn't supported by independent, impartial and verifiable evidence.
So what is the difference? I use logic based on what evidence is available. So do historians researching the crossing. Most of my evidence comes from Christian/Jewish sources. Most of the crossing evidence comes from Roman sources. My outcome is logically sound compared to the evidence as is the crossing.
Me thinks that anti-supernatural bias is actually the source of the problem rather than problems with the evidence.
JamesBrown wrote:
To sum up: Caesar himself writes he marched from Ravenna to Ariminum, which requires crossing the Rubicon. Cicero, no friend of Caesar, reports the crossing. Coins were struck in 49 B.C.E declaring it "year two of the era of Caesar," which corroborates Caesar's conquest two years earlier. And finally, it would be impossible for Caesar to rule the Roman Empire from Rome without actually entering Rome itself, requiring a Rubicon skeptic to explain away five hundred years of Roman Imperialism.
Caesar's writings are out as they do not match the OP. You claim Cicero was no friend of Caesar. Yet this doesn't jive with history.
http://www.sacklunch.net/biography/C/Cicero.html
After a year's admirable administration of the province of Cilicia, (51-50 B.C.) he returned to Italy on the eve of the civil war. After hesitating for a time, he joined the army of the Senate, but after the battle of Pharsalia, abruptly quitted his friends, and
resolved to throw himself upon the generosity of the conqueror. After nine months' miserable suspense at Brundusium, he was kindly received by Caesar, whom he followed to Rome. During the years which ensued, he remained in comparative retirement, composing his principal works in philosophy and rhetoric, including those entitled Orator, Hortensius, DeFinibus, Tusculanae Disputations, DeNatura Deorum, DeSenectute, DeAmicitia and DeOfficiis. In the commotions which followed the death of Caesar,
he espoused the cause of Octavianus, and gave utterance to his celebrated philippics against Antony.
This makes him sound like not only a supporter of Caesar but dependent upon his goodwill. Coin's were struck, yet they have nothing to do with Caesar's crossing at all, red herring. And finally we have a strawman since Goose never doubted the rule of Caesar. He is calling into question the
method of his conquest, so this argument doesn't really apply.
cog wrote:
i just finished reading a few articles about Caesar crossing the Rubicon and i didn't see any supernatural events happening.
Granted. However this is a strawman since we are not discussing or demanding evidence of the supernatural being involved with this event.
ALSO
This reply shows that Cog's bias against the idea of the supernatural supersedes his fair analysis of the evidence, hence his analysis is slanted against a particular outcome before the examination and conclusion. This causes analysis in a circle. No trial for a Mexican American would include a jury which was admittedly racist against Mexicans. This is exactly what Cog shows by starting his argument with this sentence.
Next Goose wrote:
So you are saying an assumption is all we have? At best a logical conclusion drawn from an inductive argument. An argument from evidence that is written by people many years later that are not eye witnesses to the event that can be shown to have an agenda or bias. Surely we have some unbiased eyewitness that can attest to such an event. We must have some independant, impartial, verifiable source that can affirm Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
Metatron replied:
We have plenty of evidence of Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, including his own writings. We have plenty of evidence that he seized Rome with the his legions from the Gaul campaign. We know that the route to Rome from Cisalpine Gaul requires crossing the Rubicon. Therefore common sense/simple logic would dictate that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
\
Note once again that Meta has applied a biased and partial source which again goes against the OP. Then he replies on logic again which as I pointed out is something I have done many times in the past and been shut down amidst claims of bias, partial evidence and impossible verification.
Also Goose later points out that Caesar was not required to cross the Rubicon. There were options so his demand that it must have occurred that way because it is the only way, isn't valid.
Metatron wrote:
This is where this whole Rubicon bit is silly. Caesar's crossing the Rubicon IS NOT pivotal in history. His later occupation of Rome, defeat of Pompey Magnus, and establishment of a dictatorship that foreshadowed the coming empire are the pivotal elements and there is plenty of evidence for them.
Here meta tries to again change the subject to events which DO fit the OP. But this slight of hand and misdirection won't work since we are discussing we crossing, not the rule afterwards.
McCulloch wrote:
I am also willing to extend the same admissions to the alleged evidence of Jesus. There really might have been a guy named Jesus behind the myth and miracles of the founding of Christianity. Or not.
What was your point?
what's the point?
There really might have been a guy named Jesus behind the myth and miracles of the founding of Christianity.
This is the point.
cog wrote:
Guys you have to do a lot better than argue a trivial event such as if caesar himself crossed the Rubicon. The important details of his actions i.e. taking rome, become a dictator... are well documented. If we can document that he ever farted or not is irrelevant. No one is living his life by that, and i still fail to see the supernatural in that story.
Again with avoidance. This event may or may not have been a turning point in history. But this is avoiding the OP. It was an event in history. Therefore it falls within the guidelines of the OP and therefore is fair game for discussion. Stating that it doesn't matter isn't an argument against the point Goose is making.
And then again we see anti-supernatural bias, but again it doesn't matter in analysis of history. Or at least it shouldn't to someone who is critically analyzing with an open and unbiased mind.
FINALLY Goat wrote:
Ceasars writings might not be 'independant', they might not be 'unbiased', but what we have in the is a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT. This is iknown as 'a primary source'. You see, when discussing accounts, there are primary sources, secondary sources , and terceriary sources. The writings of Caesar about what he is doing is considered a 'primary source'
Thanks for that. The OP is looking for what YOU demanded. What is the problem in finding what THE NON-THEISTS on this site demand of other evidence?
The only problem I see so far is that now this unfair and unnecessary and unscholarly demand is being made OF the no-theists rather than BY them.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
