How do you distinguish or identify truth?

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the current threads AB asked an important question

How do you distinguish a true belief from a not-true belief, if not on the basis of the evidence?

In another thread Janavoss wisely observed:

I'm not expecting empirical evidence for something that would be a supernatural event, if it did happen.

How, then can anyone know if a supernatural event happened?

WHAT tells us any such thing happened besides "He said so" or "I think so?"

Does either of those constitute credible evidence?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
In one of the current threads AB asked an important question

How do you distinguish a true belief from a not-true belief, if not on the basis of the evidence?

In another thread Janavoss wisely observed:

I'm not expecting empirical evidence for something that would be a supernatural event, if it did happen.

How, then can anyone know if a supernatural event happened?

WHAT tells us any such thing happened besides "He said so" or "I think so?"

Does either of those constitute credible evidence?

With the understanding that often times people do have agenda's, many dozens or hundreds of consistent eyewitness testimonies to a claimed event which served to contradict all observation, experience, and the very laws of nature, would reasonably, at the very least, constitute a mystery. The first step in getting to the bottom of such a mystery would be to search for some hard, physical evidence to support the claim. The second step would be to interview and investigate the witnesses to ascertain if there were some unifying reason which would cause them to conspire and collude in the spreading of such an apparently preposterous story. If such a unifying reason COULD be discovered, in combination with a complete lack of sustaining physical evidence to the truth of the otherwise preposterous claim, then we would have every right to conclude that the story was a pure fabrication and a lie.

In the case of the story of the "risen" Jesus, we are confronted with a story of a corpse which comes back to life and then ultimately flies off up into the clouds. An utterly preposterous claim, on the face of it. Rather then many dozens or hundreds of consistent eyewitness testimonies to such an occurrence, we are provided with some few STORIES, written many years after the event was supposed to have taken place, which CLAIM that there were many dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the otherwise preposterous claim. No actual accounts or references to to such an otherwise preposterous event exist which are derived from the time the event was supposed to have occurred. The supposed event provoked not the slightest ripple of historical notice or comment at the time it was supposed to have occurred. Acts of the Apostles, written decades after the fact by a clear non witness, indicates that approximately 120 loyal followers of Jesus congregated together some six weeks after his execution for the expressed purpose of spreading the story that Jesus had risen from the dead. The loyal followers of Jesus represented the the ONLY witnesses to the "risen" Jesus, an otherwise preposterous claim. The risen Jesus flew off, up into the clouds, a thoroughly preposterous claim, again "witnessed" only by the loyal followers of Jesus. And so from the very beginning, no physical evidence to the claim was provided. The story of the risen Jesus, a corpse which returns to life and then flies away, is thoroughly preposterous in that it clearly contradicts all observation, experience, and the very laws of nature, and it's origin and conception are completely consistent with a tall tale concocted and perpetuated by individuals with a clear and obvious personal agenda. There is no real reason to believe, and every real reason to doubt, such a story.

[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. (Matt. 27)

The entire explanation for the origins of the story of the risen Jesus can be resolved in this verse. The followers of Jesus, following their own agenda, spread a false story. Something which SHOULD be completely obvious to modern people.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I seem to have completely dis-railed your topic. Sorry about that. This is hardly the first time that one of my postings has halted a discussion in it's tracks. I have been responsible for many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such abruptly ended discussions during my time on the forum. I've grown use to it. This has to be a record for the shortest however.

[Divine Insight]

The loyal followers of Jesus represented the the ONLY witnesses to the "risen" Jesus, an otherwise preposterous claim. The risen Jesus flew off, up into the clouds, a thoroughly preposterous claim, again "witnessed" only by the loyal followers of Jesus. And so from the very beginning, no physical evidence to the claim was provided. The story of the risen Jesus, a corpse which returns to life and then flies away, is thoroughly preposterous in that it clearly contradicts all observation, experience, and the very laws of nature, and it's origin and conception are completely consistent with a tall tale concocted and perpetuated by individuals with a clear and obvious personal agenda. There is no real reason to believe, and every real reason to doubt, such a story.

I would disagree. There is more than every real reason to merely doubt this story. On the contrary this story should be absolutely laughed at without the slightest cause for doubt.

Not only is everything you say true, that only the devout followers of Jesus ever claimed to have seen any of this nonsense, but there are also so many things clearly wrong with the story.

For one thing the very obvious fact that a supposedly spiritual Jesus wouldn't need to take his physical body "UP" to heaven with him. And also why should have be UP?

Why would Jesus actually float off in some particular direction? Is heaven "over there"? (points in the direction Jesus supposedly ascended).

I mean if this story had Jesus rise in spirit form as a ghost and merely fade away when he left it would have at least been more consistent with the original idea of a spiritual religion. The idea that both Jesus and a bunch of saints actually had to be physically jostled from their graves and risen in the FLESH before ascending to heaven flies in the very face of the original fairytale.

Also, look what these fables claim. God speaks through a cloud to confirm to Jesus' devout disciples that Jesus is God. These are men who were already convinced of that. Why didn't God speak from a cloud when Jesus was being accused of blaspheme if he was really interested in having people believe that Jesus was his son?

Also think about how utterly contradictory this is with Christian theology. The Christians claim that if we merely don't believe in Jesus we will be condemned. And certainly John states this clearly in his gospel.

But let's just STOP here for a moment and THINK about this,...

Jesus was with his disciples in-person. Supposedly he performed all manner of astounding miracles right before their eyes. Not to mention that he was there LIVE to answer any and all questions they might have. Yet with all of that, this God still didn't think the disciples would be convinced so this God felt it was necessarily to also speak from a cloud confirming that Jesus was his son.

What?

God felt it necessarily to speak from a cloud and confirm that Jesus was his son because he didn't think that the disciples had sufficient reason to believe in Jesus without this supernatural confirmation. Yet we are to be DAMNED for merely not believing in absolutely absurd and outrageous unverifiable and truly stupid stories.

What sense does this make?

We never even met Jesus in person. We don't even know if this character even existed. We certainly didn't have any supernatural confirmation by any God speaking to us from a cloud. Yet we are to be DAMNED for merely not believing these ancient obscure stories. Stories that sound just like ever other mythological tale from the period.

In fact why aren't we believing that Hammad was God's last profit and that the Qur'an is the infallible Word of God? Supposedly we'll be DAMNED if we refuse to believe that as well.

These religions are so obviously fake that to even suggest that they should merely be "doubted" is to give them far more respect than they deserve.

There isn't even any room for doubt. These ancient religions are clearly nothing more than the result of cultures that are trying to control people by proclaiming that they have the patent rights on a God who will DAMN people if they fail to worship the religion in question.

There is nothing to "doubt". It's an obvious scam and should be dismissed with absolute confidence without a shadow of a doubt even being considered.

So you're wrong Tired of the Nonsense. These religions shouldn't even be doubted. They should be totally scoffed at an swept aside without any further consideration.

To suggest that they should be "doubted" actually conveys to the theists that perhaps there still exist a glimmer of hope that they might be true. But that's really the wrong impression to give the theists.

There is no doubt. These religions are as fake as fake can be.

There is no room for doubt.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

How, then can anyone know if a supernatural event happened?

My data suggests mushrooms can invoke these events, and boy howdy. Minds warped so far, if someone was sent to get a screw, they might just run off with your head.

What's nature here? To me, nature is all the stuff of the universe. If you took all the stuff of the universe, and you put it in one folder on the hard disk, then that's where you'd name it nature, and you'd put all that stuff in it that is.

The supernatural, under my system of data storage, takes no space, 'cept to note it's mentioned under concepts.


Now if I had to tell it, if I ever wake up, and the Lambo's in the yard, well there it is, we found it.

WHAT tells us any such thing happened besides "He said so" or "I think so?"

The god concept tells us the incredulous and confounded sometimes need a tool to "settle*" difficult, unprovable, or speculative notions.

The god concept tells us, as well, that he don't like y'all mixin' your fabrics, and please quit it. So spread that among one another as y'all go about.

Does either of those constitute credible evidence?

I'm curious to know at what rate the incredulous see any contrary evidence to be incredulous as well.

The mind is a curious sort. It has to be, to survive in a land full of big girls and pig races, and you can't pick a favorite.

[ttruscott]

.
In one of the current threads AB asked an important question

How do you distinguish a true belief from a not-true belief, if not on the basis of the evidence?

In another thread Janavoss wisely observed:

I'm not expecting empirical evidence for something that would be a supernatural event, if it did happen.

How, then can anyone know if a supernatural event happened?

WHAT tells us any such thing happened besides "He said so" or "I think so?"

Does either of those constitute credible evidence?

I don't know the philosophy of decision making but it can go any way at all:

John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?�

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.� For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.�

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.


Miracles got followers, but doctrine left them behind...kind of the opposite to your question I guess,

Peace, Ted

[atheist buddy]

.
In one of the current threads AB asked an important question

How do you distinguish a true belief from a not-true belief, if not on the basis of the evidence?

In another thread Janavoss wisely observed:

I'm not expecting empirical evidence for something that would be a supernatural event, if it did happen.

How, then can anyone know if a supernatural event happened?

WHAT tells us any such thing happened besides "He said so" or "I think so?"

Does either of those constitute credible evidence?

I don't know the philosophy of decision making but it can go any way at all:

John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?�

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.� For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.�

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.


Miracles got followers, but doctrine left them behind...kind of the opposite to your question I guess,

Right, except that the miracles never happened, so you're just left with a bunch of doctine that makes very little sense.

[YahDough]

How, then can anyone know if a supernatural event happened?

We can know the truth by revelation from God via the Spirit of Truth.

WHAT tells us any such thing happened besides "He said so" or "I think so?"

The decisions about what we believe often depend on who "said so". For example, When Paul converted to Christianity he knew it was the LORD who "said so". At that point Paul went from Christian persecutor to Christian.

Does either of those constitute credible evidence?

For believers the "LORD said so" should be the most credible evidence there is.
For nonbelievers the question is moot.

[atheist buddy]

For believers the "LORD said so" should be the most credible evidence there is.

How do you know "the lord" actually "said so"? As opposed to some guy completely making it up and writing "the lord said so" on a piece of paper?

Let me put it this way: "THE LORD SAID YOU SHOULD INVEST ON FACEBOOK STOCK".

The statement above declares that the lord wants you to do something. You believe the Lord exists, I assume. Why do you not take the statement above as one of the Lord's commands?

It's because I - some regular person you don't even know - asserts that the Lord said that. Right?

Now, can you give me an example of something you believe the "Lord" said, which isn't in reality some person you don't even know asserting that the lord said it?

[Divine Insight]

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.

Peace, Ted

If the flesh counts for nothing then why did Jesus and the saints need to be resurrected in the flesh and take their fleshy bodies with them to heaven?