Common Gripe From Christian Apologists

[POI]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims

Well, there is a reason for this....

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

This means this publication is then set on higher alert. This is one of the reasons why the Biblical account is not just another line of evidence, and is instead scene with higher levels of scrutiny. IMHO, the Bible is one of the OG's of 'fake news'. But sure, sometimes even 'fake news' can have nuggets or kernels or truth within them, which is why Bible believers can debate some "facts" or "plausible considerations", in some cases.

For example, people are growing tired of all legacy media, or what many refer to as 'fake news'. Newer platforms are now being created, in the hopes of providing more objective, unopinionated, and/or unslanted reporting. But maybe this is not ultimately possible?

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method? Or, is it instead reasonable to, in a sense, "throw the baby out with the bath water?" Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

[POI]

You were at one time a convinced Christian, and for decades of your life by taking the word of others. You did not think for yourself but allowed others to think for you. Where am I in error here?

You are the pot calling the kettle black. See your quote directly below:

You continue to put me in this "minimal facts camp" and I have finally decided to look this up

Same with me. I finally decided to look it up. But in my case, that required reading the Bible, (as this was quite some time ago). You, on the other hand, can now do a 5-second Google search. You see RealJack, we apply trust in others, without verifying for ourselves, all the time. Even when our lives depend upon it. Case/point: "Duck! Hahaha, just kidding". Take out the "just kidding" part, for which you do duck and avoid harm, ultimately leads you to trusting certain folks more and more. If you begin to trust these folks, you are less inclined to 'fact-check' every claim, and more inclined to trust them with truly deemed important matters. As I had not read the Bible (yet), aside from small bits, and the fact that multiple folks I truly trusted never led me astray, (at that point), and since I had not read the Bible myself, I trusted. So please, stop trying to score cheap nothing burger points to impress an audience.

****************************************

You now want to convince all others that it was the thinking process, (when you begin the read and think on your own) which caused you to begin to look at the facts and evidence and it was then that you rejected what you were convinced of for decades of your life for no reason. But the thing is, you have no arguments of your own. You continue to simply regurgitate what you hear from others, and it you would have just stopped to think about the arguments which sounded good to your ears, you just may have discovered that they really do not matter, or the arguments to not even apply.

There are no new arguments under the sun. Please do not flatter yourself. With the billions who ponder, I doubt you have an original idea in your head. Not all ideas become public/popular. Again, the logical thing to do is to engage the argument placed before you. Thus far, you have very prematurely patted yourself on the back. I've been debating this stuff for quite some time now. And yes, I too see the same arguments over and over and over again. There can only be so many to dish out.

[POI]

Yes, we can both admit to cognitive dissonance, but cognitive dissonance has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the disciples could not have made the story up.

Patently false. People make stuff up all the time. Which means it is possible. Rotting bodies will never rise, because it is impossible. Impossible claims, by basic definition, are options which are completely off the table for consideration. A claimed rising rotting body is impossible, ergo, off the table for consideration. Alternatively, making stuff up is completely possible, ergo, on the table. Yet again, even if we were left with a logical fork in the road; to only consider a possible option verses an impossible one, then logic dictates the logical person selects the possible option.

Cognitive dissonance is when one insists, they will not believe something which is impossible but then goes on to admit they are willing to accept anything at all no matter how impossible the scenario would be as long as it does not involve the impossible scenario they would rather not believe.

See above.

[POI]

You continue to come up with analogies, which is not even close to what we have in the resurrection claims.

Yes, they are very close to one another. They are both equally expected to never move on their own accord, because this would be impossible.

It is more like, you go to a funeral, only to find the casket empty. Your first thought would certainly not be that the deceased rose up from the casket.

It would not even ever be my last thought either, simply because this option is completely impossible. Both keys and rotting bodies do not get up on their own.

But then you have a very distressed person in the room who is claiming to have seen just that, and then you have those coming in from the parking lot claiming to have seen the deceased walking through the lot, with still others claiming to have spoken to the deceased, and in the end, we can determine none of these folks could have been making the story up.

Well, even IF this were the case, it does still not comport with the Bible, as we do not have such 'attestation.' But regardless, the body getting up on its own is not to be considered. Why? Because this option is impossible. It's no different if the same distress surrounded "missing keys". It would be completely nonsensical to ever conclude the keys moved on their own accord. This would be the only option completely ruled out immediately, forever. Hence, same goes for the missing body, being that both (the keys and the rotting body) remain laying still on their own.

You then go through all the possibilities in order to determine if there is any known natural explanation.

We've been over this... There exist differing levels of 'extraordinary,' The pinnacle extraordinary claim would be that either the keys or the rotting body left. Extraordinary to the point of being absolutely impossible. No logical person would ever consider that the keys left on their own. It instead takes special pleading to still consider the rotting body anyways. --- Maybe because some of us were initially exposed to wild claims from antiquity? Hint hint, both you and me.

Again, it would be called the historical method in order to determine what all we can know, and the resurrection claims have been through this method, and there are certain things we can know, and you simply choose to believe what you would rather believe, because there is no known explanation which would not include the extraordinary.

Claims which defy 'natural law' are generally discarded. I cover this here: viewtopic.php?t=42564

[POI]

As a matter of fact, just to demonstrate how much I tend to think on my own

So do I, but is the thinking logical? The answer here has already been addressed. It is not. And I cannot repeat this enough. Impossible options are to be discarded.

I would like to ask you have you ever heard a Christian, or anyone else make this argument from what is contained in the Bible? I have never, ever heard this argument from anyone at all, and it is concerning whether the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul.

LOL! Not only have I heard of it, so has Google AI:

Yes, the traditional understanding is that Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts (which are both addressed to Theophilus), was a traveling companion and close associate of the Apostle Paul.

Here's why: "We" Passages in Acts: The narrative in several sections of the Book of Acts shifts from the third person ("they") to the first person plural ("we"). This suggests the author was present with Paul during those journeys.

Paul's Mentions of Luke: Paul mentions Luke in his letters. He's described as a "fellow worker" (Philemon 1:24). Luke is also referred to as "the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14) and was present with Paul during imprisonment (2 Timothy 4:11). These passages are believed to be written by Paul or in his name.

Luke's Style and Focus: Luke's writing style is detailed and historically oriented. His interest in the spread of Christianity among Gentiles and his focus on Pauline theology aligns with Paul's ministry and interests.

While discussions continue regarding the authorship of Luke-Acts, the traditional view of Luke as Paul's traveling companion is widely held based on these textual clues

************************

And you regurgitate the Google AI result below (i.e.):

Of course, we know that the author begins to use the words, "we" and "us" when describing certain events, and we would have to agree that this would naturally lead one to believe that the author was present to witness the events he is recording.......

************************

Moving on, there is other evidence to suggest the author was present with Paul on his journeys, but we do not have time to go into it here. However, there is another piece of evidence which strongly suggests that the author traveled with Paul, and I have never heard this argument from anyone at all. You can look it up if you like, but I have never seen this argument, and with this being the case, the argument is mine, and it is the strongest evidence that the author traveled with Paul.

LOL! K. I'll take your word for it then. I would advise that, in the future, come with your strongest argument first, being you spend a lot of time responding to other stuff you seem to not deem very important.

You see, the author of the second letter to Theophilus begins this letter reporting on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, when Paul arrives on the scene and begins his missionary journeys, for some strange reason we begin to only read of the actions of Paul, and we do not read of any of the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. Can you imagine why that would be? Of course, you can, and it is as plain as the fact that you have no arguments of your own, and it is the FACT that if this author was traveling with Paul then he would not be able to report on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem since he would have had no way to know what they were up to, since he was with Paul. And guess what? That is exactly what we have. The author begins the second letter reporting on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, until Paul begins his journeys, at which point we only hear of the actions of Paul, while we hear nothing of what is going on in Jerusalem, until, or unless Paul returns to Jerusalem.

All I can say is that I created an entire thread in your honor, to move us away from THIS topic, which has to do with a completely DIFFERENT topic. And yet, here we still are. --> (viewtopic.php?t=42567).

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #50]

As I said, we are going to take one of your points you simply regurgitate and force you to defend this point. We will look at the first point in this post. I claim to have debunked your unfalsifiable claim argument, and you respond with this,

Maybe in your own mind. However, even Google disagrees with you:

Examples of potentially unfalsifiable claims include metaphysical statements about the existence of deities or certain interpretations of psychological theories that lack empirical evidence.

Again, you are trying to score very cheap nothing burger points because you already know the skeptic cannot truly falsify your one-time claim of the impossible, (i.e.) "the resurrection".

This statement is unreal. I am arguing that the unfalsifiable claim argument does not apply to our discussion, and you simply refer me to "google" which is only supplying us with "potential" unfalsifiable claims. GOOD GRIEF! I am not arguing that there is no unfalsifiable claims. My argument is the unfalsifiable claim argument does not apply to this discussion. Rather, the unfalsifiable claim argument was intended to be confined to science and was never intended to say that unfalsifiable claims should not be believed, and or there would be no facts and evidence in support of unfalsifiable claims. You are attempting to bring science into a realm where it does not belong.

Moreover, your argument here is that folks make claims they intend to be unfalsifiable, so that the argument can never be falsified. In other words, you are suggesting that this is a ploy on the part of those making the claim because they know their claim can never be falsified. The fact of the matter is, I am not making the claim we are referring to, but rather it was those some 2000 years ago, and we know that it is not possible that these folks were attempting to make an unfalsifiable claim, and we know this because we know they were not making the story up, and we know this based upon the facts and evidence you say we do not have.

So then, we have enough facts and evidence to know that those who actually made the claim could not have possibly attempted to make an unfalsifiable claim, and according to you it is the ones making the claim whose intent it is to cause the claim to be unfalsifiable. This means, the ones who made the claims did not intend for the claims to be unfalsifiable, and Christians today are not responsible for the claim being unfalsifiable, on top of the fact that the unfalsifiable claim argument was intended to be confined to science and was never intended to be used in the way in which you are attempting. Rather, the unfalsifiable claims argument was intended to keep science in the realm of science and allow other realms of study to take care of the realms outside of science.

One more thing here before I end. It was Karl Popper who came up with the unfalsifiable claim argument, and he came up with the argument because he was well aware of unfalsifiable claims, which demonstrates that your reference to "google" was pointless. We all know there are unfalsifiable claims. Because Popper knew this to be the case, it was his aim to keep science out of the realm of the unfalsifiable. It was not his aim to suggest that there would never be any facts, evidence, nor reasons to believe the unfalsifiable.

All the above completely debunks your unfalsifiable argument. OH! I am so sorry! I continue to refer to these arguments as yours, and we both know that none of the arguments you make originate with you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #54]

So do I, but is the thinking logical? The answer here has already been addressed. It is not. And I cannot repeat this enough. Impossible options are to be discarded.

Until, or unless we may be left with two impossible scenarios, and then according to you we should select the impossible scenario based upon what the odds may be, when we all know the odds of the impossible would be zero. How in the world is this logical. It is not. Rather, this is what you would call, "cognitive dissonance".

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #54]

LOL! Not only have I heard of it, so has Google AI:

Yes, the traditional understanding is that Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts (which are both addressed to Theophilus), was a traveling companion and close associate of the Apostle Paul.

Here's why: "We" Passages in Acts: The narrative in several sections of the Book of Acts shifts from the third person ("they") to the first person plural ("we"). This suggests the author was present with Paul during those journeys.

Paul's Mentions of Luke: Paul mentions Luke in his letters. He's described as a "fellow worker" (Philemon 1:24). Luke is also referred to as "the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14) and was present with Paul during imprisonment (2 Timothy 4:11). These passages are believed to be written by Paul or in his name.

Luke's Style and Focus: Luke's writing style is detailed and historically oriented. His interest in the spread of Christianity among Gentiles and his focus on Pauline theology aligns with Paul's ministry and interests.

While discussions continue regarding the authorship of Luke-Acts, the traditional view of Luke as Paul's traveling companion is widely held based on these textual clues

You need to go back and read more carefully. I never said a thing in the world concerning others coming to the conclusion that the author traveled with Paul from textual clues. In fact, I cited the "we" and "us" passages which did not originate with me, and I also mentioned the other evidence contained in the letter which we did not have the time to go into. Okay then, what is the evidence I supplied from the letter which is not included in your reference to "google" above? Well, that would be the argument I am making in which the author begins this letter describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, until Paul arrives on the scene and begins his missionary journeys. It is at this point we only begin to hear of the actions of Paul, and do not hear of what the apostles in Jerusalem were doing until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with the apostles. The point is, if the author was indeed with Paul on his journeys, the author could have only reported on what Paul is doing and would have no way to report on the apostles in Jerusalem since he is instead with Paul.

So then, I have heard the argument concerning the "we" and "us" passages, and I have heard the argument that Paul refers to Luke as being with him. What I have not heard is the argument I make above in that if the author was traveling with Paul he could only report on Paul and could not report on the apostles in Jerusalem as he does in the beginning, because he has left Jerusalem with Paul, and that is exactly what we have. My argument stands. I have never heard this argument, and what you supply above does not contain the argument I am referring to, but you are welcomed to continue fishing because I would love to see if there may have been another who has noticed this evidence.

Is it any wonder why I continue to say, "you cannot make this stuff up"? I mean, you throw some junk up from "google" which does not even contained the argument I was referring to, as evidence the argument has been made. I am not insisting the argument has never been made, I am saying I have never heard this argument in all my years of study.

[POI]

Until, or unless we may be left with two impossible scenarios, and then according to you we should select the impossible scenario based upon what the odds may be, when we all know the odds of the impossible would be zero. How in the world is this logical. It is not. Rather, this is what you would call, "cognitive dissonance".

In honor of your own words, see below, as I quote you directly:

in my next response I am going to focus in on one point you make, and I am going to force you to defend that one point until is has been exhausted..

AND:

It is more like, you go to a funeral, only to find the casket empty. Your first thought would certainly not be that the deceased rose up from the casket. But then you have a very distressed person in the room who is claiming to have seen just that, and then you have those coming in from the parking lot claiming to have seen the deceased walking through the lot, with still others claiming to have spoken to the deceased, and in the end, we can determine none of these folks could have been making the story up.

******************************************************************************************

FACT: Keys don't move on their own accord.
FACT: Rotting bodies don't move on their own accord.

Whether one enters into a room to find a person or people distraught about a missing body, or missing keys, and whether or not the person entering the room is willing or able to produce any/all possible and/or viable scenarios, one conclusion is to be 100% removed from the options list. And that option would be that either the keys, or the rotting body, got up and left on its own accord. Why? Because of basic FACTS listed above.

The cognitive dissonance comes in to still even entertain or consider that the rotting body got up and left, while never even considering that the keys could have got up and left. Why? because neither can possibly get up and leave on their own accord.

And yet again, 'making something up' is possible. However, both (rotting bodies and keys) do not move on their own accord, because is it impossible.

The consistent and logical thing to conclude, for the claim that either (the rotting body or the keys) are concerned, is simply that neither moved on their own accord.

So please, let us speculate, until the cows home, as to what really happened ~2K years, as claimed from a collection of ancient writings in which both you and I were initially exposed to?

Can we go to the real topic now? Or maybe you now know we do not even need to, as it is ridiculous to leave an impossible option on the options list for consideration? -> viewtopic.php?t=42567

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #58]

My friend let's get away from the analogies and stick to the real thing. Because you see, since we have the real thing analogies are not needed. We know for a fact that Jesus was crucified and buried, and we also know there were those just days later who were claiming to have witnessed him alive after the crucifixion. We then go on to assume that these folks could not possibly be reporting the truth, until we apply the historical method and we discover that this would not even be possible. Again, even the critical scholars who would love to be able to make the case that this would be a possibility are forced to acknowledge that it would be impossible. The fact of the matter is it does not take a scholar to understand this would be impossible, because all one would have to do is to sit down and determine what all would have to be involved in order for it to be possible for the resurrection story to have been made up, and it does not take very long at all to understand just how impossible it would be.

Okay, then you move on. Since we know the story was not made up, we are now faced with attempting to determined what caused hundreds of folks to become convinced that Jesus did in fact raise from the dead to the point they are willing to continue to proclaim such an impossible event, in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claim, with the former life of Paul demonstrating this to be the case. You see, if you will simply sit down and run through any scenario you can think of, and go on to think through all that would have to be involved in order for such a scenario to be the case, you will discover that such a scenario would be impossible, and the impossible, is the impossible, no matter how much easier it is to believe one scenario over another. In other words, once you have determined that a particular scenario is impossible, you do not then look to the odds to determine which of the scenarios would be the most likely, and decide to believe the scenario which would be more likely, because such thinking demonstrates one who believes anything at all, as long as it is not the scenario which they would rather not believe.

You see, you want to convince yourself something badly, that there is no way that anyone could possibly use reason and come to the conclusion you once held for decades of your life with no reason at all, while it is a fact that one who has determined a particular scenario to be impossible, and yet would choose to believe one impossible scenario over another impossible scenario is unreasonable. My friend, you are faced with the fact that there are, and have been a tremendous amount of extremely intelligent folks, folks who are far more intelligent than you and I, who are convinced by the facts and evidence we have, that the resurrection did in fact occur, and in the face of this fact, you want to insist these folks could not have possibly used reason to come to the conclusions they hold. I'm just telling you, a reasonable person would look at the fact that there are many extremely intelligent folks who hold to a different conclusion and come to know that reason could be used to come to such a conclusion, while it absolutely demonstrates an unreasonable person to hold to the position that those opposed could not have possibly used reason. My friend, you have sold yourself so far out to the position you hold that you must and have to insist you are correct with no possibility of error, to the point that you cannot even afford to admit that it may be possible to use reason to come to a different conclusion.

The above is the position you are now forced to hold on to, and this of your own making, while I am free to admit, and know that reason can be used to hold to a different position than I hold, and the reason I am free to know this to be the case, is because I have actually sat down and thought through all these things very carefully, and therefore, I am not in a position where I am forced to admit that all who hold to a different position has to be unreasonable.

Allow me to share with you some facts. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not and have not used reason to come to the conclusion they hold. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not really know what it is they believe, nor why they believe as they do. It is a fact that many of these folks wake up one day and come to the realization that they have never engaged the mind in order to be a Christian. They then begin to come to the realization that most all Christians are in the same boat. It is a fact that there are those who come to see the truth in all the above, and this causes them to conclude that it must be impossible to use reason and remain to be a Christian.

All I can say is that I created an entire thread in your honor, to move us away from THIS topic, which has to do with a completely DIFFERENT topic. And yet, here we still are. --> (viewtopic.php?t=42567).

I really do not get it? I mean, over, and over, we are having a discussion just fine, and you all of a sudden want to change threads, as if the change of threads is going to help out in some way? I have usually refused to do this because I see no need in moving to a different thread, even if the conversation has veered off the topic of the thread since this is how conversations go all the time.

At any rate, after taking a look at that thread, I am eager to participate, because I believe I see something there which I have been predicting would happen all along. However, it does seem sort of strange that we are now leaving this thread, when I decided to take one of your points at a time. At any rate I will have to assume that your argument concerning unfalsifiable claims has been defeated and eliminated from your arguments from here on.

One more thing here. I do not have a whole lot of time to spend here, so it will at times take me days, and even more to respond and I appreciate the understanding. With this being the case, I will begin to work on my first response to the new thread and look forward to the exchange.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #59]

I'm truly baffled... Maybe you just see 'red' when I respond. It's as if you have never really read many of my responses.

I would like this topic to return back to its own lane.

1. The purpose of THIS created topic is to simply notify theists of a specific type of gripe.
2. Through your initial vast response, somewhere deep within that response, it seems we somewhat agree to the topic/point.
3. I guess it's my fault for chasing all your provided rabbit trails.
4. You ultimately turn all our exchanges into a resurrection debate. And I told you why.
5. Hence, I created a topic tailored specifically to you, about specific comments you make, in an effort to salvage THIS created topic, as this topic has nothing to do with debating a resurrection.

So please, for the love of 'fill-in-the-blank', address the thread specifically created for what YOU want to talk about, and I will be happy to address it more. Any onlookers looking for resurrection arguments will know where to go, by looking at the title of the topic.

And please rethink about what you say, because I have already debunked what you have stated above. In other words, stew on it a bit more, reload, and come with better arguments. Because if you don't, and simply repeat what you stated directly above, it's not going to go very well for you.

Thank you kindly!