Plausibility: a Test

[liamconnor]

Another look at the term “plausibility�.

I am still not convinced that the term “plausible� means anything more in the mouths of atheists here than “I don’t believe in miracles.� Let’s try a test.

Which is a more plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity?

1) The Christian explanation entailing a deity that intervenes…

2) Aliens from a distant galaxy that supported life eons longer than our own and who therefore had the benefit of time to progress farther in technology than we have, took the corpse of Jesus (for their own purposes) and, using advanced technology (think Men in Black) brainwashed the disciples into thinking they had actually seen Jesus alive and well.


The first involves a supernatural God; the second is purely natural.

Three Questions:

Is the second more plausible than the first solely on the grounds that it is natural?

If so, does that superior plausibility by itself render the supernatural explanation absurd? I mean, has the comparison settled the question once and for all, "Slam Dunk for non-Christians!"?

If no to either, what is lacking in the natural explanation?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 5 by alexxcJRO]


Moderator Warning


This post is full of accusations and insults and definitely DOES require moderator intervention. Please keep these thoughts to yourself and avoid personal attacks on other members.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

Another look at the term “plausibility�.

I am still not convinced that the term “plausible� means anything more in the mouths of atheists here than “I don’t believe in miracles.� Let’s try a test.

Which is a more plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity?

1) The Christian explanation entailing a deity that intervenes…

2) Aliens from a distant galaxy that supported life eons longer than our own and who therefore had the benefit of time to progress farther in technology than we have, took the corpse of Jesus (for their own purposes) and, using advanced technology (think Men in Black) brainwashed the disciples into thinking they had actually seen Jesus alive and well.

Why only the two? The most plausible explanation for me is that a group of people wanted to impose their will on other humans. They wanted power and money so started up their own religion and conned a lot of people to do it.

In fact I think 2 is almost as ridiculous as 1. Number 2 should actually be the explanation I have just given, not the alien argument

So

1) The Christian explanation entailing a deity that intervenes…
2) Men making up a religion to gain power, money and fame.

In which case 2 makes way more sense.


If we are only limited to those 2 options you have given... well as I said, both seem utterly ludicrous to me, but I'm more likely to go with Aliens than gods. However I would never really entertain aliens as the cause without any real evidence. I'm seeing as much evidence for aliens as I am for gods. ie, nothing convincing.

Is the second more plausible than the first solely on the grounds that it is natural?

Of course yes. All through my life I have seen no real evidence of the supernatural. In fact what I used to believe was supernatural has been proven to have natural causes. There seem to be natural causes for everything so I don't see why I should entertain any claims of the supernatural at all.

There are things that are still a struggle to explain naturally, but the god of the gaps is shrinking every day so I don't see why that trend won't continue and as we learn more, be able to come up with explanations for these things.

If so, does that superior plausibility by itself render the supernatural explanation absurd?

No, the supernatural explanation is absurd because it IS absurd. Magic, miracles and anything like that as far as I have seen are either tricks or as a result of natural causes.

I mean, has the comparison settled the question once and for all, "Slam Dunk for non-Christians!"?

I just see no good reason to entertain thoughts of magic as a cause for anything. Not when magic is being ruled out more and more as we as humans learn more.

If no to either, what is lacking in the natural explanation?

If we are talking about your natural explanation, ie aliens, I see it as lacking any real evidence, exactly the same as the god theory. I see it on the reality scale as a 2, whereas the god idea ranks as a 1. (10 being realistic) There are many other possible explanations that would rank up there as a 9 or a 10, but of course your strawman does not allow for those.

[DanieltheDragon]

Another look at the term “plausibility�.

I am still not convinced that the term “plausible� means anything more in the mouths of atheists here than “I don’t believe in miracles.� Let’s try a test.

Which is a more plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity?

1) The Christian explanation entailing a deity that intervenes…

2) Aliens from a distant galaxy that supported life eons longer than our own and who therefore had the benefit of time to progress farther in technology than we have, took the corpse of Jesus (for their own purposes) and, using advanced technology (think Men in Black) brainwashed the disciples into thinking they had actually seen Jesus alive and well.


The first involves a supernatural God; the second is purely natural.

Three Questions:

Is the second more plausible than the first solely on the grounds that it is natural?

If so, does that superior plausibility by itself render the supernatural explanation absurd? I mean, has the comparison settled the question once and for all, "Slam Dunk for non-Christians!"?

If no to either, what is lacking in the natural explanation?

To examine the plausibility of both statements. Let's examine if either are even possible.

1. Is ressurection shown to be possible after cell death? No.
If ressurection after cell death what is the possibility of Jesus being resurrected? None

2. Is life shown to exist in the universe? Yes
Is it possible life exists in the universe outside of earth? Yes
If life exists outside of earth is your scenario possible? Yes

Both scenarios are absurdly unrealistic. I would not argue in favor of either. As while the second scenario is technically possible, it is entirely unrealistic. Both are baaaaaaad terrible positions to take on the matter from a logical perspective.

The interesting thing is you avoid a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the whole thing, in favor of an absurd unrealistic explanation in order to prop up the supernatural. Even though it fails at doing that.

[OnceConvinced]

Peter lied?

Peter is a known liar. In fact one of the most famous liars in the world. He denied knowing the son of God 3 times. Would you ever do that?

If he was willing to deny knowing Jesus, then why wouldn't he lie about other things?

[Divine Insight]

So you have no problem with Jesus being resurrected by a God, just not God as he is described in the Bible?

That's right. Although I see absolutely no reason for any other God to be bothered resurrecting Jesus either. There's simply no sane or intelligent reason to do this.

In other words, your problem is with the Bible, not Christianity; for Christianity existed before the N.T. was written?

It is my position that Christianity is 100% dependent upon the O.T. There's simply no way to get around that one. In fact, you'd need to toss out a great deal of what is said in the N.T. if you want to try to disassociate Jesus from the O.T.

What you don't seem to realize is that I was on my way to becoming a Christian Pastor. So I was looking for any possible way to "save Jesus". If Jesus could have been made as a stand-alone religion that would have been great. But that, my friend, is impossible.

In fact, I always say that Jesus was crucified twice. Once when he was physically nailed to the cross. A second time when the authors of the N.T. metaphorically nailed him to the O.T. as the sacrificial Son of Yahweh.

Jesus is nailed to the O.T. far more permanently that he was ever nailed to a cross.

There simply is no way to make a stand-alone religion out of Jesus. That cannot be made to work. If you think it can more power to you, but I am certain that you will never convince me of that because I know better.

If that is your position, you are not my opponent on this forum.

If you claim that Jesus is something other than the prophesied Son of Yahweh who was intentionally sent to earth on a mission that Yahweh himself had orchestrated, then you have created a BRAND NEW RELIGION that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christianity.

So why even bother calling it "Christianity" or even pretending that you could associate it with "Christianity" in any way?

Christianity is a religion that is based on BOTH the O.T. and the N.T. and there's no way to free Jesus from a dependency upon the O.T. anyway. So even if you wanted to try to create a "Free Jesus" you couldn't do it.

So now at least I see your problem. You seem to think that you can create a religoin from Jesus and toss out the O.T. as having nothing to do with it, and claim that this resulting religion is still "Christianity".

I'm sure there are a lot of "Jesus Freaks" who would love nothing more than to do just that. But it's simply not feasible. Jesus cannot be made into a stand-alone religion.

Jesus has been nailed to the O.T. by the authors of the N.T. Gospels far too heavily. There's simply no way to reverse that now. You'd need to go back and rewrite the Gospels from scratch. In fact, it would end up being a whole different story necessarily so if you plan on detaching it from the O.T.

So if that's your hope I can tell you right now that's never going to fly.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

Sounds like your epistemology (at least in regards the bible) is highly emotional: "the ot don't sit comfortably with me, therefore there can be no deity behind it and therefore Jesus wasn't raised."


Is that a fair assessment?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 23 by DanieltheDragon]

1. Is ressurection shown to be possible after cell death? No.
If ressurection after cell death what is the possibility of Jesus being resurrected? None

So you have evidence that if there were a God, still, he could not reverse the processes of decay...?

Fascinating.

2. Is life shown to exist in the universe? Yes
Is it possible life exists in the universe outside of earth? Yes
If life exists outside of earth is your scenario possible? Yes

Both scenarios are absurdly unrealistic.

Not sure how you moved from three 'yeses' to a condemnation.

I would not argue in favor of either. As while the second scenario is technically possible, it is entirely unrealistic. Both are baaaaaaad terrible positions to take on the matter from a logical perspective.

so you admit that just because a theory is strictly natural, it does not therefore trump a supernatural theory on those grounds?

The interesting thing is you avoid a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the whole thing, in favor of an absurd unrealistic explanation in order to prop up the supernatural. Even though it fails at doing that.

The interesting thing is how very few have actually kept to the OP. This OP is not about arguing for the resurrection or even Jesus. It is about finding out what atheists here think "plausible" means and whether "natural" always means "plausible" when contrasted with "supernatural".

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 24 by OnceConvinced]

So you are willing to define and support a detailed theory explaining how Peter orchestrated one of the greatest conspiracies in recorded history?

I am eager to read this defense!

Could you please create a separate OP for it?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 27 by liamconnor]

So you have evidence that if there were a God, still, he could not reverse the processes of decay...?

Do you have positive evidence of this God, are you able to show that he actually is capable of reversing cell decay, other than by declaring that you are able to imagine a being who is able to do so, and what do ya know! here's a story where the reversal of cell decay happened!
Burden of proof.

so you admit that just because a theory is strictly natural, it does not therefore trump a supernatural theory on those grounds?

Not what Daniel said. The supernatural theory by definition is ALWAYS less likely, because it cannot be shown to be true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 28 by liamconnor]

So you are willing to define and support a detailed theory explaining how Peter orchestrated one of the greatest conspiracies in recorded history?

Still waiting for you to define and support a detailed theory about how exactly Jesus was resurrected, with something more than "[strike]God[/strike]A wizard did it". As in, I want a detailed explanation, on par with what I'd expect to get if I asked an astronomer for a detailed explanation of how stellar fusion works.