Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Confused]

If, in order to make your point, you must present a lesson in some principles of logic, then, on this site, that may be a requirement.

That is, unless he's just making an excuse as he did re the Robert Price review. Apparently I was just "not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas article" so I "fell for it". What a joke!

I am so glad to hear I am not the only ignorant person here who can't seem to pick up on logical fallacies and can't grasp the concept of what a inductive or deductive logical argument consists of. I will ask Zorro once again, quit making others do you work. Show your methodology and prove you assertion. Period.

Because you don't understand the concept of an inductive argument, you don't realize that the majority of it has already been given. A set of criteria used by historians was given. Data was offered and passed the criteria, to be entered in as evidence. Facts were drawn from the evidence. The last step is to draw a conclusion from the facts. given those facts, it should be obvious even to youwhere this is heading. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. By that I mean that any other explanation must deny one or more of the facts.

We are done here.

Z

No you would be done, as far as I am concerned you have proven nothing except default by attack. If what you say is true, who exactly is it you have had this arguement with with data offered and criteria passed etc.... Far as I can tell, all your criteria were flawed and your conclusion was your criteria. But as you know, I am not smart. If I require lessons from you, then I will only get dumber. I can live with my current mentality. Now, for your typical condescending remarks>>>>>>>>

[Goat]

Because you don't understand the concept of an inductive argument, you don't realize that the majority of it has already been given. A set of criteria used by historians was given. Data was offered and passed the criteria, to be entered in as evidence. Facts were drawn from the evidence. The last step is to draw a conclusion from the facts. given those facts, it should be obvious even to youwhere this is heading. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. By that I mean that any other explanation must deny one or more of the facts.

We are done here.

Z

I am still waiting for that set of criteria from you, and the 'objective methology'. As far as I can see, you throw up some unsupported assumptions, and then claim victory. Unsupported claims are not facts you know.

[Zorro1]

Because you don't understand the concept of an inductive argument, you don't realize that the majority of it has already been given. A set of criteria used by historians was given. Data was offered and passed the criteria, to be entered in as evidence. Facts were drawn from the evidence. The last step is to draw a conclusion from the facts. given those facts, it should be obvious even to youwhere this is heading. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. By that I mean that any other explanation must deny one or more of the facts.

We are done here.

Z

No you would be done, as far as I am concerned you have proven nothing except default by attack. If what you say is true, who exactly is it you have had this arguement with with data offered and criteria passed etc....

Isnt this part of the problem? You cant tell what an inductive argument looks like so you have no idea when and where it is being offered. Look at my posts with goat. It is all there.

Far as I can tell, all your criteria were flawed and your conclusion was your criteria.

Once again, the biggest part of the problem is you cant tell the difference between criteria, evidence, and conclusions. Let me help you here. I will repeat the set of criteria and you show me where the conclusion, that Jesus rose from the dead, is found in it (from post 268):

"(1) Early written evidence.
(2) Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question.
(3) Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case.
(4) The principle of embarrassment.
(5) Antagonistic party agreement
(6) Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established.
(7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?
(8) Context and expectation.
(9) Adequate cause.
(10) Principles of embellishment.

Now, any one piece of datum does not have to pass all these criteria to be considered evidence. Some will pass through three or two or even just one of these criteria."

Well, I don't see anything about Jesus in that criteria, do you? I don't see anything about rising from the dead in that criteria, do you?

But as you know, I am not smart. If I require lessons from you, then I will only get dumber. I can live with my current mentality. Now, for your typical condescending remarks>>>>>>>>

Simply because remarks are condescending doesnt make them any less accurate or true.

Z

[Confused]

Because you don't understand the concept of an inductive argument, you don't realize that the majority of it has already been given. A set of criteria used by historians was given. Data was offered and passed the criteria, to be entered in as evidence. Facts were drawn from the evidence. The last step is to draw a conclusion from the facts. given those facts, it should be obvious even to youwhere this is heading. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. By that I mean that any other explanation must deny one or more of the facts.

We are done here.

Z

No you would be done, as far as I am concerned you have proven nothing except default by attack. If what you say is true, who exactly is it you have had this arguement with with data offered and criteria passed etc....

Isnt this part of the problem? You cant tell what an inductive argument looks like so you have no idea when and where it is being offered. Look at my posts with goat. It is all there.

Far as I can tell, all your criteria were flawed and your conclusion was your criteria.

Once again, the biggest part of the problem is you cant tell the difference between criteria, evidence, and conclusions. Let me help you here. I will repeat the set of criteria and you show me where the conclusion, that Jesus rose from the dead, is found in it (from post 268):

"(1) Early written evidence.
(2) Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question.
(3) Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case.
(4) The principle of embarrassment.
(5) Antagonistic party agreement
(6) Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established.
(7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?
(8) Context and expectation.
(9) Adequate cause.
(10) Principles of embellishment.

Now, any one piece of datum does not have to pass all these criteria to be considered evidence. Some will pass through three or two or even just one of these criteria."

Well, I don't see anything about Jesus in that criteria, do you? I don't see anything about rising from the dead in that criteria, do you?

But as you know, I am not smart. If I require lessons from you, then I will only get dumber. I can live with my current mentality. Now, for your typical condescending remarks>>>>>>>>

Simply because remarks are condescending doesnt make them any less accurate or true.

Z

I do believe Goat asked the same thing in the post after mine.

[Cathar1950]

Simply because remarks are condescending doesnt make them any less accurate or true.

It also does not make them less false or inaccurate.
They are just condescending the rest is irrelevant.
It seems you are the only one that thinks there are true and I among others question your thinking. You might want to point out any real thinking do to our inability to recognize it in your writings.

you cant tell the difference between criteria, evidence, and conclusions. Let me help you here. I will repeat the set of criteria and you show me where the conclusion, that Jesus rose from the dead, is found in it (from post 268):

Those have been questioned and found wanting since 268. Confused, Lotan(372)The Duke of Vandals, IPOINTITOUT and Goat all called you on it then you started insulting Confused with your logic ruse. I even addressed your 12 facts in 303.Finally you went from 12 to 6.

If we can agree on these facts, or at least some of them, it will help us move along.

Your problem is you need to agree on this first mind-game before you can move on to your other mind-games. We cant agree.

Depending on the specific fact we find agreement from 95% to 99% on each of these:

I noticed you did say "depending on the specific "fact" or belief. This is what makes you 95% to 99% a questionable and irrelevant number. Where are these historians and scholars? What of the ones including Christians that doubt these facts? You do not have 12 facts, you have 12 questions at best.

1. Jesus died via crucifixion.

Besides the gospels what do we know of the crucifixion? Many were crucified.
Does Paul actually say how he was killed?

2. Jesus was buried.

He was placed in another persons new tomb according to the story not buried.
Where is the empty tomb as some one else asked earlier? Again it is part of the story and what believers believed, it is not a fact.

3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.

We dont know if he was his brother. It is still questioned today. Only the stories that seem to have a need to play down the family of Jesus mention his brothers in the gospels.
Some think that James was not a brother but that "brother of the lord" was a title of an elite in the assembly. You know nothing of James conversion. We do know from Pauls anti-James letters that he was one of the "pillars" that has issues with Paul. As many ideas about Jesus there was disagreement even during Pauls time.

4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.

He had visions of the "Christ" which he believed was a spirit because flesh and blood cant inherent the kingdom of God. Pauls description of his conversion does not mesh with the account in Acts. What he did after does not mesh. These do not make facts.

5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus

We have stories of the disciples and doubtful second century writings. We dont knw what they experienced; we have what later believers read.

6. The disciples were transformed as a result of appearances.

Maybe they were, maybe not. Most people are transformed by experiences.
They may have been Zealots that had a vision of Jesus sitting on the right hand of God.
All we have are the stories.

7. The resurrection was the disciples central message.

So what? Again that is the story not a fact. Jesus preached the gospel (good news) before he died. It sounds more like Pauls central message. 400 years later they are still fighting over the flesh and nature of Jesus. With al these facts you would wonder why so many heresies of diversity of ideas even a 100 years after the supposed facts.

8. The disciples preached the message of the resurrection in Jerusalem.

According to the stories that are in question. But then so what? That doesnt make it a fact.

9. The Church was born and grew.

So did the Gnostics, and the mystery religions. There was even emperor worship. Does that make Augustus the Son of God a fact? What does that have to do with anything?

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus worshiped on Sunday.

Whatever, so did sun worshipers..

11. Jesus death originally caused the disciples to despair & lose hope.

No kidding and how about the tens of thousands that were crucified by Romans, do you thing that made them happy?

I will include one more that is accepted by over 75% of scholars:

12. The tomb was empty.

What tomb? I can say that 100% of them do not know where the empty tomb is located.
By the time the gospels where written there was hardly anything to look for. Where is Davids tomb? There are many explanations for an empty tomb including "dogs ate him" and the body was stolen.
It seems that you 12 "facts" are duds.
I am just showing you the nature of your 12 questionable facts off the top of my head. We could go into great detail but I do not think it is needed.
There is a diversity of opinion on your supposed facts even among Christians and your lack of acknowledgments seems as honest as Eusebius selective views.

"(1) Early written evidence.
(2) Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question.
(3) Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case.
(4) The principle of embarrassment.
(5) Antagonistic party agreement
(6) Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established.
(7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?
(8) Context and expectation.
(9) Adequate cause.
(10) Principles of embellishment.

Now, any one piece of datum does not have to pass all these criteria to be considered evidence. Some will pass through three or two or even just one of these criteria."

They have all been questioned and do not make facts.

[quote"Z"]Well, I don't see anything about Jesus in that criteria, do you? I don't see anything about rising from the dead in that criteria, do you?[/quote]

No I dont.

So a cop goes to a crime scene finds a piece of candy. He picks it up because it is evidence.
But a kid dropped it there two days earlier or even after the crime. It is useless evidence, unrelated and irrelevant. You fail to distinguish between good evidence poor evidence, and irrelevant non-evidence.

[Zorro1]

you cant tell the difference between criteria, evidence, and conclusions. Let me help you here. I will repeat the set of criteria and you show me where the conclusion, that Jesus rose from the dead, is found in it (from post 268):

Those have been questioned and found wanting since 268. Confused, Lotan(372)The Duke of Vandals, IPOINTITOUT and Goat all called you on it then you started insulting Confused with your logic ruse. I even addressed your 12 facts in 303.Finally you went from 12 to 6

This is where the condescending remarks begin.

Please, you make this far too easy for me. You dont like the criteria I set out, that is fine with me, come up with your own. Just show the dozens of historians and scholars that agree with you, as I listed. Make sure your list covers the full spectrum or scholars from atheist to conservative, as I did.

Next, lets see what happens when we apply your criteria to the rest of history. Will anything be left? Perhaps a few stray facts, here or there, but nothing that could be called "a history." As I have repeatedly said to Goat, the problem that you dont understand is there is more and better evidence for the resurrection than virtually any other event of that time. So, any criteria you come up with that eliminates those 12 facts will also eliminate the rest of history. That is why, without ANY fear of contradiction, I can affirm those 12 facts and insist that the only rational conclusion is that Jesus was raised from the dead.

I went from 12 to 6 facts, because that is all I got through before Goat started running. And that is about all I need to make my case. If I had the chance I would go through the empty tomb, but I dont think we will actually get there, because I know you will never come up with criteria that you accept and is accepted by a wide range and number of historians and scholars.

Z

[Goat]

you cant tell the difference between criteria, evidence, and conclusions. Let me help you here. I will repeat the set of criteria and you show me where the conclusion, that Jesus rose from the dead, is found in it (from post 268):

Those have been questioned and found wanting since 268. Confused, Lotan(372)The Duke of Vandals, IPOINTITOUT and Goat all called you on it then you started insulting Confused with your logic ruse. I even addressed your 12 facts in 303.Finally you went from 12 to 6

This is where the condescending remarks begin.

Please, you make this far too easy for me. You dont like the criteria I set out, that is fine with me, come up with your own. Just show the dozens of historians and scholars that agree with you, as I listed. Make sure your list covers the full spectrum or scholars from atheist to conservative, as I did.

Next, lets see what happens when we apply your criteria to the rest of history. Will anything be left? Perhaps a few stray facts, here or there, but nothing that could be called "a history." As I have repeatedly said to Goat, the problem that you dont understand is there is more and better evidence for the resurrection than virtually any other event of that time. So, any criteria you come up with that eliminates those 12 facts will also eliminate the rest of history. That is why, without ANY fear of contradiction, I can affirm those 12 facts and insist that the only rational conclusion is that Jesus was raised from the dead.

I went from 12 to 6 facts, because that is all I got through before Goat started running. And that is about all I need to make my case. If I had the chance I would go through the empty tomb, but I dont think we will actually get there, because I know you will never come up with criteria that you accept and is accepted by a wide range and number of historians and scholars.

Z

You have yet to show they are facts though. You may believe they are facts, but you have not shown it. Nor have you shown an objectivie methodology.

So, you have 6 claims (no facts), and from there, you pull a rabbit out of your hat, and come up with a conclusion based on faith. No criteria there.

[Confused]

Zorro:
This is where the condescending remarks begin.

Please, you make this far too easy for me. You dont like the criteria I set out, that is fine with me, come up with your own. Just show the dozens of historians and scholars that agree with you, as I listed. Make sure your list covers the full spectrum or scholars from atheist to conservative, as I did.

See, once again, pass the buck. We don't have to show any criteria, show historians or scholars, or anything else. This is your assertion. State you methodology, criteria, and conclusion. No debate or agreement needed. After you show your entire inductive arguement, then we can address it. Until then you are blowing smoke as always. No set of criteria needs to be agreed upon first. There is no steps of both parties back and forth. You make an assertion, show your methodology, show your criteria, and then your conculsion. Your arguement is the up for critique. So once again, either back your assertion or end your discussion.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hello Zorro1

I am new to this very long thread and I cannot say I have read every post. So I need to play catch up.

Zorro1

The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Ok so the conclusion is that it would be irrational not to conclude Jesus rose from the dead. I think that is the implication of "the only rational conclusion".

You have backed up this claim with a set of criteria to guide our way to this conclusion.

Zorro1

"(1) Early written evidence.
(2) Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question.
(3) Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case.
(4) The principle of embarrassment.
(5) Antagonistic party agreement
(6) Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established.
(7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?
(8) Context and expectation.
(9) Adequate cause.
(10) Principles of embellishment.

Let take criteria 7. and the claim that Jesus rising from the dead fits well with other surrounding circumstances. How far do you allow the surroundings to go? All the way to medical science?

I believe you are also saying you claim from Jesus rising from the dead is the only rational conclusion is backed up by inductive logic. Is this correct?


Anyway. Here is a bit of inductive reasoning.

Person A died and did not rise from the dead, person B likewise, ........person 10^9 and.....so on.

Now the principle of inductive reasoning states that one infers a general rule from observed instances. Inductive reasoning then seems only suited for inferring no one has ever risen from the dead. Therefore it would be irrational to believe in the resurrection if one limits oneself to the methodology of induction.

Put it this way: For every piece of historical evidence you wish to draw on, that can be open to an alternative interpretation, I'll point you to a dead person whose non resurrection is not open to any interpretation. They will quite clearly be dead and remain dead.

However the weakness of induction is that the inferred general rule might be false. Hume pointed this out a long time ago. So maybe Jesus did rise from the dead. If he did that just underlines the weakness of induction, and not its strength.

Ok you also say

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you and since in past posts you have already shown that you will reject any principle of logic that refutes your position, all I will say, as I have in the past, is take a class on logic. You simply cant reason with a man that either doesnt know the rules of reason or rejects the rules of reason when their application shows him wrong.

I'm open to reason Zorro1. Rational too I hope. That's why I dont beleive in the resurrection by way of induction. If I did my conclusion would be drawn upon a fallacy. And that rubs against my sesne of what counts as rational

[Zorro1]

You have yet to show they are facts though. You may believe they are facts, but you have not shown it.

How do you know? What is the basis for you saying I havent shown facts? Unless you have a methodology in place, you are in no position to make that claim. If all you are doing is expressing your preference and bias that is your privilege. But, it has nothing to do with rationally based conclusions. Facts arent facts because you like them. Neither do they become "not facts" because you dont like them. Do you have anything besides you opinion to base your claim upon? Didnt think so.

Nor have you shown an objectivie methodology.

Once again, in order to make that claim you must know what an objective methodology is. Why dont you show us you have some clue, and explain what an objective methodology would look like.

So, you have 6 claims (no facts), and from there, you pull a rabbit out of your hat, and come up with a conclusion based on faith. No criteria there.

All I will say to you is the exact same thing I said to Cather: You dont like the criteria I set out, that is fine with me, come up with your own. Just show the dozens of historians and scholars that agree with you, as I listed. Make sure your list covers the full spectrum or scholars from atheist to conservative, as I did.

The problem with you and Confused and Cather is none of you have a clue how induction is done. All your accusations of "no facts," "no method," and "no criteria" are based on your bias opinion, not on induction as used in histography. And this is my BIG point: If we do use induction as it is used in histography, the only rational conclusion is that Jesus rose from the dead. That is why the three of you must run away from inductive methods as fast as your little feet will carry you.

You dont want to accept my criteria, OK, its the same criteria historians use to determine the rest of history for that period and many centuries beyond. Are you going to say that all the facts we have about the rest of history are not facts? Or that the historians using this method havent shown an objective methodology. Why should we accept anything that any historian says? The fact is, if you want to maintain any appearance of coherence you will have to reject all of ancient history based on those criteria and methodology I have presented. That means you will have to reject all of ancient history.

Z