Is There A Double Standard?

[bluegreenearth]

When reviewing various arguments from theists and non-theists, I often wonder if the people launching objections to these arguments on either side of the debate would apply the same level of skepticism towards their own arguments. Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist or theist failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument. Alternatively, describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where the objection to an argument offered by a non-theist or theist also applied to the counter-argument but was unjustifiably ignored or dismissed.

The debate will be whether a double standard was most likely exhibited in the described scenario or not.

If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #390]

Yes.

With this answer then, are you claiming it would be a fact, that Craig is using dishonest tactics, and sleight of hand? Can you demonstrate this to be a fact? Or, can you only supply certain evidence, which you believe, support your opinion of the facts?

Who's supposing that?

So then, you agree that there may in fact be those who agree with you, who may indeed use the sort of tactics you accuse Craig of? Or, are you just not aware of any?

Who mentioned anything about people that used to be Christians, here or otherwise?

It just so happens this site if filled with folks who have mentioned the fact that they were at one time convinced Christians.

What does this have to do with my claim about William Lane Craig?

You mean the claim that he is dishonest, and employs dishonest, tactics, and sleight of hand, which you have failed to demonstrate, to be anything other than an opinion you hold?

You haven't made your point clearer.

Oh? I'm thinking it is very clear by now.

It's not automatic. Whether you agree with me or not, I told you the reasoning that went into it.

Right? But telling me the reasoning behind it, does not demonstrate it to be a fact. The question still remains, do you, and have you went on to do this same sort of evaluation on those who would agree with you? Or, do you simply reserve this sort of critic, for those who are opposed? Because you see, I am convinced there are those who agree with me, who would to such a thing. I am also well aware that there may be those opposed, who employ such things. However, I do not go on to accuse those opposed, until, or unless, I can demonstrate this to be the case.

Nobody else's motives would have any effect on Craig's.

True, but you have failed to demonstrate the motives of Craig you seem to be insisting, would be anything other than an opinion you hold.

Why have you added them to the discussion?

In order to demonstrate what may be a "double standard". In other words, you seem more than willing to accuse one who is opposed to you as using deceitful tactics. The question is, has it even crossed your mind to evaluate the arguments of those who agree with you, in order to determine if they may be guilty of such tactics? Or, do you simply reserve this sort of evaluation for those who are opposed?

I didn't mention your motives, either.

I did not suggest that you had, which is why I used the word, "IF".

As I said, I probably shouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is, you cannot in any way demonstrate his arguments to be in error. Nor can you demonstrate his intent to be, "malice". Rather, all you can do is to share an opinion you hold.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #379]
I think I see what you are attempting to do here? You seem to be insisting the NT would not be a reliable source of information? The question now would be, are you insisting the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, would be false?

Nope. The available facts and evidence are too inadequate for me to conclude the resurrection claim is true or false.

So then, is it your conclusion, that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could in fact be true?

First, you need to understand how I distinguish between what could in fact be true, what is factually possible, and what could be conceivably possible. From my perspective, a proposed historical claim could "in fact" be true if it describes a type of thing or event that I know is factually possible. I'll know when a type of thing or event being described is factually possible because those types of things or events will have been previously and reliably demonstrated to exist or occur in reality and are not just imaginary. As far as what could be conceivably possible, any imagined thing or event is conceivably possible. However, such speculation serves no practical purpose unless the imagined thing or event can be subsequently demonstrated to factually exist or occur beyond the imagination and in reality for me to justifiably infer the historical claim describing such a thing or event could in fact be true.

In order to justifiably infer that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could "in fact" be true, a resurrection would have to be demonstrated to occur in reality under controlled conditions for me to know such an event is factually possible in the first place and not just imaginary. Since "the possibility" of a resurrection is not a fact, I have no justification to infer it would have been factually possible for a resurrection to have occurred in past. Therefore, I cannot responsibly infer that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could in fact be true. Please note that this is not equivalent to inferring the claims are false. However, the possibility for a resurrection to not occur in reality is a demonstrable fact. Accordingly, given this factual possibility, I can justifiably infer that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could in fact be false. Again, please note that this is not equivalent to inferring the claims are false.

So, to summarize:

• Are the claims of the resurrection found in the NT true (or false)?

The available facts and evidence are too inadequate for me to conclude the resurrection claims are true (or false).

• Could the claims of the resurrection found in the NT be in fact true (or false)?

I would need to know a resurrection is factually possible to justifiably infer that the claims of resurrection in the NT could in fact be true. However, I can justifiably infer that the claims could in fact be false.

• Is a resurrection factually possible?

I have no clue because a resurrection has not been reliably demonstrated to occur in reality for me to know it is factually possible.

• Could a resurrection be conceivably possible?

If anything is conceivably possible, then a resurrection could be conceivably possible, but such speculation serves no practical purpose unless it can be subsequently demonstrated as a factual possibility.

Would all the above mean that your conclusion would be, the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, could in fact be true? Or, no?

[bluegreenearth]

Would all the above mean that your conclusion would be, the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, could in fact be true? Or, no?

It meant that I don't know if they could be true.

[Realworldjack]

Would all the above mean that your conclusion would be, the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, could in fact be true? Or, no?

It meant that I don't know if they could be true.

Would this mean, your conclusions would be, the reports of the resurrection in the NT could in fact be true, since you admit that you, " don't know if they could be true"?

[bluegreenearth]

Would this mean, your conclusions would be, the reports of the resurrection in the NT could in fact be true, since you admit that you, " don't know if they could be true"?

You need to understand that there is a nuanced difference between justifiably concluding the claim could in fact be true and not having sufficient facts and evidence to justifiably conclude the claim could in fact be true. To justifiably conclude the claim could in fact be true is to have first obtained the facts and evidence necessary to reliably demonstrate that the types of things or events described in the claim are factually possible. To not justifiably conclude that the claim could in fact be true is to acknowledge the available facts and evidence fail to reliably demonstrate that the types of things or events described in the claim are factually possible. Since the facts and evidence which have been made available to me by Christian apologists do not include a reliable demonstration of a resurrection, I cannot justifiably conclude that the reports of the resurrection in the NT could in fact be true without first knowing if a resurrection is factually possible.

[Realworldjack]

Would this mean, your conclusions would be, the reports of the resurrection in the NT could in fact be true, since you admit that you, " don't know if they could be true"?

You need to understand that there is a nuanced difference between justifiably concluding the claim could in fact be true and not having sufficient facts and evidence to justifiably conclude the claim could in fact be true. To justifiably conclude the claim could in fact be true is to have first obtained the facts and evidence necessary to reliably demonstrate that the types of things or events described in the claim are factually possible. To not justifiably conclude that the claim could in fact be true is to acknowledge the available facts and evidence fail to reliably demonstrate that the types of things or events described in the claim are factually possible. Since the facts and evidence which have been made available to me by Christian apologists do not include a reliable demonstration of a resurrection, I cannot justifiably conclude that the reports of the resurrection in the NT could in fact be true without first knowing if a resurrection is factually possible.

Is this to say, you cannot demonstrate the reports of the resurrection in the NT to be false?

[bluegreenearth]

Is this to say, you cannot demonstrate the reports of the resurrection in the NT to be false?

I cannot demonstrate the reports to be false, though, they could be false.

[William]

Is this to say, you cannot demonstrate the reports of the resurrection in the NT to be false?

I cannot demonstrate the reports to be false, though, they could be false.

So - while not an example of a double standard, is this an example of a stalemate?

And if so, then the stalemate points to belief in the resurrection being faith-based rather than fact based.

And as well,, non-belief in the resurrection also can be regarded as faith-based.

Thus [logically] one is best to remain agnostic in relation to the story of the resurrection, if one does not want faith-based beliefs and wants to remain in the logical position.

[bluegreenearth]

Is this to say, you cannot demonstrate the reports of the resurrection in the NT to be false?

I cannot demonstrate the reports to be false, though, they could be false.

So - while not an example of a double standard, is this an example of a stalemate?

And if so, then the stalemate points to belief in the resurrection being faith-based rather than fact based.

And as well,, non-belief in the resurrection also can be regarded as faith-based.

Thus [logically] one is best to remain agnostic in relation to the story of the resurrection, if one does not want faith-based beliefs and wants to remain in the logical position.

If by non-belief you mean to believe the resurrection did not occur, then I agree that would describe a faith-based position unless facts and evidence are provided to falsify the historical claim. If by non-belief you mean to lack belief in the resurrection claim, then this would not be a faith-based position.

[William]

Is this to say, you cannot demonstrate the reports of the resurrection in the NT to be false?

I cannot demonstrate the reports to be false, though, they could be false.

So - while not an example of a double standard, is this an example of a stalemate?

And if so, then the stalemate points to belief in the resurrection being faith-based rather than fact based.

And as well,, non-belief in the resurrection also can be regarded as faith-based.

Thus [logically] one is best to remain agnostic in relation to the story of the resurrection, if one does not want faith-based beliefs and wants to remain in the logical position.

If by non-belief you mean to believe the resurrection did not occur, then I agree that would describe a faith-based position unless facts and evidence are provided to falsify the historical claim. If by non-belief you mean to lack belief in the resurrection claim, then this would not be a faith-based position.

Yes - non-belief means to believe the resurrection did not occur.

If facts and evidence are provided to falsify the historical claim, then there is no need for non-belief as the evidence provided places one in the position of knowledge rather than of belief.

Lacking belief in the resurrection claim is more a position of ignorance because those who lack belief do so in relation to not having the information [claim] regarding the resurrection.

If one does have knowledge of the claim re the resurrection and there is no evidence of its truth either way and still lacks belief, it is because ones position is agnostic in regard to the information.

Therefore, "lacking belief" is not the same as "non-belief".