The ROCK AND A HARD PLACE fallacy

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]


We should not digress into a debate on religious artifacts, but there are many artifacts, even whole walls that match the time and scripture of kings and different happenings in the bible.

Evidence would take away the need for faith.
viewtopic.php?t=28782

Of course!
I would call foul, because thats the cheapest oldest stage trick cliche ever!

Its always the same. For example: The audience sees a stage magician entering a box, and after a little wile "the magician" leaves the box transformed into a sweet PENGUIN !
OF COURSE, NO ONE EVER sees the man actually transform into this penguin, even though THAT WOULD BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART TO WATCH!

I wonder why thats so? Awww-it couldnt be all a trick, could it?

But if James Randy, Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier had been invited to enter stage to look into the box while the magician transforms AND THEY WOULD SWEAR THEY SAW THE MAN WONDROUSLY TRANSFORM INTO A POLAR BIRD, things would be different.

Even more if they wrote it down in their books, they all would describe the same astonishing experience in detail, trying to find explanations and some time would pass without the trio calling it all out as conspirative psychological experiment on people.

That is a challenge I agree, a spectacular event takes place 2,000 years ago and people strive to create some written record of it, what else could they do? I don't think it would materially help at all if their account said something like "and the room glowed and the dead body turned to smoke and filled the room, then the smoke cleared and our Lord was standing there looking at me" (for example), are you really saying you'd believe it more? like you'd react "Oh OK, then yes, that makes more sense, I believe it now"?

No, nothing could have been written beyond what was written that could convince a skeptic.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27092&start=480

I created a new fallacy thar verily needs to be outcalled.

I name it the ROCK AND HARD PLACE FALLACY.

The pressing for hard evidence in religious claims gets normally dodged by believers in one of two extremely paradox ways.

Either they say that hard evidence is not given, for that would ruin free will and ruin the need for faith 'cause everyone and his aunt Petunia would instantly turn into hardcore believer.

Or they say that no matter the evidence, sceptics would never but never turn into believers.

Both generalized claims I call the above fallacy.

Both claims have not only logical errors amass, they also aim to dodge the question for hard evidence and swapping the theme from evidence to how can people make to believe.

Am I right, that it is a important to outcall this fallacy ?

[The Nice Centurion]

[And on another note (off topic)..

There was this now defunct website called "Best Gore", which featured a lot of pictures and videos of murders, death, gore, etc.

It gave you a steady dose of some of the most harsh realities of the evil world that we live in.

And below every picture/video, members of the website could make comments.

Anyway, there was one picture of an unfortunate victim of a homicide.

The dude had his head smashed with a big boulder/rock.

The rock laid at rest on the man's smashed head.

Someone left a comment which stated..

"This dude is stuck between a rock and a dead place".

The comment is/was so funny and relevant, that I would laugh at the comment..even if I was the victim!!!

Please explain why this is funny. I do see not even a functionable wordsplay.

Is this the dreaded hard to understand christian humour?

Without assuming a pre-existing position is accurate, which of these claims would be extreme?

Neither one is a extraordinary claim. We all have seen people praying and not praying. Its a religious matter.

Extraordinary would be: "I saw a Bigfoot praying in your bathroom!"

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #20]
I have to work and think on and about my created fallacy. Stay on.

Meanwhile, I researched the Sagan standard, which I quoted with erroneous wordings. It says:

The Sagan standard is a neologism abbreviating the aphorism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Yeah, that was what I meant. And I always saw this as reasonable. Isnt it?

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #20]

The Sagan standard is a neologism abbreviating the aphorism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Yeah, that was what I meant. And I always saw this as reasonable. Isnt it?

Yes, if we take the extreme cases like you did in post 19 where you compared getting up in the morning to some nonsense about zombies. But what if take the more realistic claims that theists and non-theist make? Who decides when a claim is extraordinary? Who decides when evidence becomes equally extraordinary? This still looks like the fallacy of ambiguity.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

If you asked me, why isn't the resurrection of Jesus more believable?

If I answered that question with, well, if God wished to be known in such a way that he could not be doubted, then your question would have merit. However, if God exists, we can assume he doesn't wish to be known in such a way that he cannot be doubted, because his existence is doubted.

That is not a fallacy. It is pointing out why the question isn't necessarily valid.

If I were to instead answer with something like, you would be skeptical no matter what historical evidence there was. This is not good reasoning. Rather, maybe say something like, could there be a reasonable amount of historical evidence that we must believe?

I think the answer is no. I cannot think of what historical evidence would be 100% convincing that Jesus rose from the dead.