Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Zorro1]

1) Joe says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
2) James says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
3) There are two wrecked cars at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Conclusion: there was a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Maybe neither Joe or James saw a two car accident, they may have seen the cars and come to that conclusion or made up the fact they say it.
The two cars may have been left there by two different towing trucks and are unrelated. Or two other cars hit them and ran. Joe and Jim made up the story because they were drunk.

Thank you! You bring out the problem quite clearly. This is exactly the approach taken by many atheists and skeptics regarding the evidence for the resurrection. Any number of altenate explanations can be offered in any situation. Given that fact, how do you give a cogent argument and reach any strong conclusion?


Z

Of course, there is a big difference between a car accident, and the so called 'resurrection'.

A more valid anaology would be

A) The national enquirer says Joe says he saw an alien space craft come down and make crop circles 30 years ago.
B) The national enquirer says James said he saw an alien space craft come down and make crop circles 30 years ago.
C) Not all crop circles have been shown to be made by men.

Conclusion .. Aliens made some crop circles.

You missed the point! Given all possible alternative explanations for anything, how do you give a cogent argument and reach any strong conclusion?

Z

[Goat]

1) Joe says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
2) James says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
3) There are two wrecked cars at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Conclusion: there was a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Maybe neither Joe or James saw a two car accident, they may have seen the cars and come to that conclusion or made up the fact they say it.
The two cars may have been left there by two different towing trucks and are unrelated. Or two other cars hit them and ran. Joe and Jim made up the story because they were drunk.

Thank you! You bring out the problem quite clearly. This is exactly the approach taken by many atheists and skeptics regarding the evidence for the resurrection. Any number of altenate explanations can be offered in any situation. Given that fact, how do you give a cogent argument and reach any strong conclusion?


Z

Of course, there is a big difference between a car accident, and the so called 'resurrection'.

A more valid anaology would be

A) The national enquirer says Joe says he saw an alien space craft come down and make crop circles 30 years ago.
B) The national enquirer says James said he saw an alien space craft come down and make crop circles 30 years ago.
C) Not all crop circles have been shown to be made by men.

Conclusion .. Aliens made some crop circles.

You missed the point! Given all possible alternative explanations for anything, how do you give a cogent argument and reach any strong conclusion?

Z

By weighing the probablities for one.

What is more probable in my example. Space aliens coming down and making crop circles.. or humans making crop circles, and stories coming about because of them.

We KNOW that there are human pranksters and artists that make crop circles. We know that people make weird stories up about things. So, what is more likely, space aliens, or the everyday occurance of human activity followed by stories being made up by others?

Now, which is a more reasonble thing to think when it comes to elvis sightings?? Elvis actually being alive, and wandering about, or people being mistaken, and making stories up about it?

Can you see the analogy between those , and the alledged resurrection?

[Zorro1]

By weighing the probablities for one.

What is more probable in my example. Space aliens coming down and making crop circles.. or humans making crop circles, and stories coming about because of them.

We KNOW that there are human pranksters and artists that make crop circles. We know that people make weird stories up about things. So, what is more likely, space aliens, or the everyday occurance of human activity followed by stories being made up by others?

Now, which is a more reasonble thing to think when it comes to elvis sightings?? Elvis actually being alive, and wandering about, or people being mistaken, and making stories up about it?

Can you see the analogy between those , and the alledged resurrection?

OK, my friend, I looking for you to have a light go off in your head moment here. What is your probability based on? Past expriences. But those past experiences have the same problem as our current test case. How do you determine what really happened in those past experiences that make up the probability? Each and every one of those past experiences have alternate explanations to all of their data too. So, what is the basis that those previous arguments are cogent and their conclusions are strong?

I hope you can see, if you can't answer this question for one, you can't answer it for any! In fact, I hate to say it, you would be begging the question!

Z

[Goat]

By weighing the probablities for one.

What is more probable in my example. Space aliens coming down and making crop circles.. or humans making crop circles, and stories coming about because of them.

We KNOW that there are human pranksters and artists that make crop circles. We know that people make weird stories up about things. So, what is more likely, space aliens, or the everyday occurance of human activity followed by stories being made up by others?

Now, which is a more reasonble thing to think when it comes to elvis sightings?? Elvis actually being alive, and wandering about, or people being mistaken, and making stories up about it?

Can you see the analogy between those , and the alledged resurrection?

OK, my friend, I looking for you to have a light go off in your head moment here. What is your probability based on? Past expriences. But those past experiences have the same problem as our current test case. How do you determine what really happened in those past experiences that make up the probability? Each and every one of those past experiences have alternate explanations to all of their data too. So, what is the basis that those previous arguments are cogent and their conclusions are strong?

I hope you can see, if you can't answer this question for one, you can't answer it for any! In fact, I hate to say it, you would be begging the question!

Z

Yes it is based on past experiances.. what else do I have to go on.

Tell me, how many people have you seen raised from the dead? It sounds like to me that you are the one begging the question.

You need more evidence than books written 30, 40 or more years after the alledged event to demosntrate someone coming back from the dead. Do you have any physical evidence .. answer no. Do you have any contemporary evidence?? No. What do you have?? A bunch of stories.

Now, are you going to show YOUR methodolgy and objective reasoning? Or you just going to avoid the subject more?

[Zorro1]

Yes it is based on past experiances.. what else do I have to go on.

Tell me, how many people have you seen raised from the dead? It sounds like to me that you are the one begging the question.

You need more evidence than books written 30, 40 or more years after the alledged event to demosntrate someone coming back from the dead. Do you have any physical evidence .. answer no. Do you have any contemporary evidence?? No. What do you have?? A bunch of stories.

Now, are you going to show YOUR methodolgy and objective reasoning? Or you just going to avoid the subject more?

Well, I had hoped that you would have an Aha! moment, but it looks like you will have to settle for a Doa! moment.

You want to quickly move on and hope that no one notices that you are not able to answer this basic question: Since all data have alternate explanations, what is the basis for deciding which explanation you will accept. You can't impose conclusions from past experiences, because each and every one of those has the same problem as the current example. Given your current position, you are unable to determine any past experience and therefore can not calculate the probability of any of them.

You want to know how many dead people get up and walk around? My question to you is, how many don't? Since all data has an alternate explanation that is possible, you will not be able to present any experiences to justify your position, or for that matter any position.

Remember Cathar's alternate explanation for the traffic accident was, everyone lied and the evidence was planted. If that is a legitimate alternate explanation for that scenario, then that same explanation can be used to destroy any experience you present.

You can't ask that an agrument be presented until you can answer this question.

Z

[Cathar1950]

Zorro you seem to be having a "doa!" moment.


Here we are talking about a supposed wreck, which is not a good analogy for the resurrection.
A better analogy would be you James and Joe are getting drunk and read a 2000-year-old story about a wreck and say the two cars are still there but no one else saw them.
Another good analogy would be if you three where drunk and heard someone tell some one else they read there was a car wreck while there are no wrecked cars or streets.

[Zorro1]

Zorro you seem to be having a "doa!" moment.


Here we are talking about a supposed wreck, which is not a good analogy for the resurrection.
A better analogy would be you James and Joe are getting drunk and read a 2000-year-old story about a wreck and say the two cars are still there but no one else saw them.
Another good analogy would be if you three where drunk and heard someone tell some one else they read there was a car wreck while there are no wrecked cars or streets.

It doesn't matter what example you give, to all of them the answer is the same, you gave it several posts ago, "Everyone lied and the evidence was planted." To any argument you give for or against any position, the answer will be, "Everyone lied and the evidence was planted."

Unless you can answer this, you can make no arguments or claims. So, how do you answer it? You brought it up, its up to you!

Z

[Cathar1950]

I don't doubt any of them I believe in Osiris, Adonis, Jesus, and Mithras.
I am assuming you do to because of all the documents.
Then there is Marduk, the Babylonian God. It is written on stone and clay.
When he comes back he is going to be upset with you.

It doesn't matter what example you give, to all of them the answer is the same, you gave it several posts ago, "Everyone lied and the evidence was planted." To any argument you give for or against any position, the answer will be, "Everyone lied and the evidence was planted."

Unless you can answer this, you can make no arguments or claims. So, how do you answer it? You brought it up, its up to you!

No you made up the story of the wreck the two witnesses the cars and the streets.
My possible answer to your imaginary story is not related to any evidence that you have presented. Which despite Confused asking you to do so and has been repeatedly ignored it is not my argument or position that is in question, it is your unsubstantiated ones that need to be produced. What differences does it make what any of us think of any historical figure?
By your reasoning I should believe everything that is said or written about anyone.
Yet you are trying to place the burden of proof on what you believe by confusing it with the burden of proof about some unknown historical entity not in question. Is any of this sinking in? You have not managed to give your reasons evidence arguments or method while you have only pulled imaginary straw-men out of your rear-end projecting them to others that have no one is advocating to place the burden on others for you lack of substance. Not only are you begging the question, as Confused pointed out, you are also avoiding it.

Confused:

Prove your assertion, and you prove me wrong. Keep avoiding it, and you prove me right. It is as simple as that.

Either prove your assertion or quit.

Once again, prove your assertion. You make some wild claims

When you are ready to present your info: great

However, since zorro never gave his "methodology" he never had one to abandon to begin with. He has instead given false premises, multiple fallacies, and multiple character or approach attacks in order to steer the conversation away from his assertion because he knows he can't prove his assertion.

Goat:

Now, are you going to show YOUR methodolgy and objective reasoning? Or you just going to avoid the subject more?

[Goat]

Yes it is based on past experiances.. what else do I have to go on.

Tell me, how many people have you seen raised from the dead? It sounds like to me that you are the one begging the question.

You need more evidence than books written 30, 40 or more years after the alledged event to demosntrate someone coming back from the dead. Do you have any physical evidence .. answer no. Do you have any contemporary evidence?? No. What do you have?? A bunch of stories.

Now, are you going to show YOUR methodolgy and objective reasoning? Or you just going to avoid the subject more?

Well, I had hoped that you would have an Aha! moment, but it looks like you will have to settle for a Doa! moment.

Because I believe in common sense?? That I dont' belive in voodoo, elvis sightings, alien abductions, Angels coming down to light Julius's Ceasars funeral pyoir, Vespian healing the blind and curing the lame with a touch of his hand, nor
do I see any reason to believe in the resurrection?? Come on now, get a reality check there.

You want to quickly move on and hope that no one notices that you are not able to answer this basic question: Since all data have alternate explanations, what is the basis for deciding which explanation you will accept. You can't impose conclusions from past experiences, because each and every one of those has the same problem as the current example. Given your current position, you are unable to determine any past experience and therefore can not calculate the probability of any of them.

You want to know how many dead people get up and walk around? My question to you is, how many don't? Since all data has an alternate explanation that is possible, you will not be able to present any experiences to justify your position, or for that matter any position.

There is a saying that Carl Sagan had... extrodinary claims needs extrodinary evidence. Where is your evidence? Where is your methodlogy for saying the
Gospels suffice? You are continually trying to shift the burden of proof onto others. It used to be the the so call 'Big Bang' was scoffed at. Evidence changed
the opinion of the vast majority of cosmologists.

Where is your evidence?? Where is your methology?

Remember Cathar's alternate explanation for the traffic accident was, everyone lied and the evidence was planted. If that is a legitimate alternate explanation for that scenario, then that same explanation can be used to destroy any experience you present.

You can't ask that an agrument be presented until you can answer this question.

Z

Cathar's alternate explaination is merely showing the lack of reliablity of eye witnesses. An actual car accident will leave at least one car, maybe two or more damaged. There will be physical evidence left behind. There is something MORE than just the claims of two witnesss that claimed to see a traffic accident.

As far as I can see, you are desperately grasping at straws trying to make a 'faith position' be real. You are also trying to distract from the fact that you made a claim you can not back up. Remember what that claim was? You said by ANY objective methology for applying to historical work, you can prove the resurrection
happened. I have yet to see any of that from you. You have distractions, you try to force 'assumptions' that are part of the conclusion. You do not appear to have anything. Give your methodolgy and give your case. You have done nothing.

[Zorro1]

I don't doubt any of them I believe in Osiris, Adonis, Jesus, and Mithras.
I am assuming you do to because of all the documents.
Then there is Marduk, the Babylonian God. It is written on stone and clay.
When he comes back he is going to be upset with you.

Why do you believe in anything? After all, all the witnesses could be liars and all the evidence could be is planted! You dont know, nor can you know anything at all. You dont like my example of a car wreck because it was made up. OK, let's use an example that wasnt made up. Here is a real one: There are a number of Arabs that believe 9/11 was a plot implemented by Pres. Bush and the Israelis. When you point out all the evidence, what do they say? They will tell you, "All the witnesses are liars and the evidence is planted". Sound familiar? How do you answer them? Do you say, "Yea, thats a good argument, I never thought of that?"

The point is you determine history based on your own personal bias. What you like is allowed in without question, what you dont like is expelled without any rational reason.

In your post you stated: "Which despite Confused asking you to do so and has been repeatedly ignored it is not my argument or position that is in question, it is your unsubstantiated ones that need to be produced." How do you know anything is substantiated or unsubstantiated? That is what I have been asking of you, and you have been running away from answering. You say my arguments are unsubstantiated, how do you know? How do you determine something is "unsubstantiated?" You use the word; I assume you must know how to make that determination. Please share your method with us. Inquiring minds want to know.

By your reasoning I should believe everything that is said or written about anyone.

Oh really? Lets put your challenge to the test. Lets compare the evidence for the life and acts of Adonis (your example from above) to other historical figures and then to the resurrection.

I have given the criteria used by virtually all historians and scholars dealing with the resurrection, lets use those same criteria. So, go ahead and show what data would be allowed in regarding Adonis using those criteria. We will all be waiting. Either prove your assertion or quit.

Z