Faithful One wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:06 pm [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
I created a new fallacy thar verily needs to be outcalled.Inquirer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:46 pmThat 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"?The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:06 pm 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.
No, nothing could have been written beyond what was written that could convince a skeptic.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27092&start=480
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 ?