Vagueness, Plausibility, and Presuppositionalism

[liamconnor]

Vagueness, Plausibility, and Presuppositionalism

The majority of natural explanations for the early proclamation of Jesus' resurrection are extremely vague; the irony is that their apparent strength rests precisely in their vagueness. Someone who doesn't believe in God or miracles says, "well obviously Rome made it all up". This is vague. No one can imagine "Rome making it up": a person can, however, imagine Titus sitting at table with advisers asking, "What do we do about these recalcitrant Jews (although that itself is a monolithic description)?" and then imagine someone saying, "I know, we will introduce..."....and then we imagine a Roman announcer in the streets of Jerusalem saying, "I hereby announce a new deity named Jesus!" And we can imagine a whole crowd just willy nilly saying, "Okay Caesar! I'll accept this Jesus!"

That is concrete. "Rome made it all up" is not.

So much for the question of vagueness....

The question of plausibility depends on our degree of vividness. The less our theory is like an idea in our heads than it is like a movie playing in our imaginations the more legitimate plausibility becomes as a real historical tool.

Allow me two examples:

What is more plausible, that a man should do a half hour belly dance, or that he should launch a nuclear missile?

I think most would go with a belly dance. Everyone has a belly.

But let's get more concrete, more detailed.

What is more plausible, that Kim Jong-un should do a half hour belly dance, or launch a nuclear missile?

The details change the picture.

Let's take another:

What is more likely, that a man should have a ham sandwich, or stab someone with a knife through the back?

Ham sandwich? I live by a subway. Not many assaults occur there.

Now let's change it: What is more likely, that one of Josephus' sicarri should eat pork, or should stab someone in the back with a knife.

The details change the question of plausibility.

Most hypotheses for the origins of Christianity do not attempt to get concrete; and therefore they rest on a plausibility that applies only to vagueness. Thus if someone asked me, What is more plausible, that God raised someone from the dead or that someone lied about it? I would go with the latter.

But real life isn't vague. It is concrete, vivid, imaginable. And when we add all the nuanced details of the data to the question of the origins of Christianity, then the "lie" hypothesis becomes hopelessly implausible.

So much for Vagueness and Implausibility. Now for presuppositionalism.

If a member here responds, "It doesn't matter how concrete or detailed you get, there is still no way for Jesus to have come alive again; the vague plausibility referred to is just as valid" then that person is a presuppositionalist. He can't be argued with; no more than certain Christian fundamentalists can be argued with about the age of the earth. He is not amenable to reason and his presence here is sham.

If someone says, "Implausible but still better than a miracle" then that person too is a presuppositionalist and can't be argued with. For what does it matter if the theory is "better" than a miracle. We are asking about "what happened" and if the theory is implausible, why do we talk as if it were not, simply because it is juxtaposed with something we simply won't accept?

Presuppositionalists don't care if they can't find a suitable explanation for the origins of Christianity; it doesn't matter if they can't explain it, because they know a priori that the Christian explanation is impossible.

Oh of course they talk as if their conclusions are based on historical or intellectual inquiry--I mean, no one wants to be a presuppositionalist. But the song and dance is just that. It is all a charade. They will ask for evidence; but they have already decided before it is given that it must be wrong. If they cannot (by which I mean, so far on this forum none have) provide a positive alternative, they behave as if presenting an unsatisfying alternative is magically satisfying because it isn't the Christian one.

[Divine Insight]

The majority of natural explanations for the early proclamation of Jesus' resurrection are extremely vague; the irony is that their apparent strength rests precisely in their vagueness. Someone who doesn't believe in God or miracles says, "well obviously Rome made it all up". This is vague. No one can imagine "Rome making it up": a person can, however, imagine Titus sitting at table with advisers asking, "What do we do about these recalcitrant Jews (although that itself is a monolithic description)?" and then imagine someone saying, "I know, we will introduce..."....and then we imagine a Roman announcer in the streets of Jerusalem saying, "I hereby announce a new deity named Jesus!" And we can imagine a whole crowd just willy nilly saying, "Okay Caesar! I'll accept this Jesus!"

That is concrete. "Rome made it all up" is not.

"The majority of natural explanations"?

What in the world is that?

Also, why should I even care what the "majority of natural explanations" might even be? They aren't my explanations. Who are you referring to, and where are you getting your data?

My explanations are nothing at all like what you've just posted. I've never claimed that "Rome made it all up". In fact, I have no clue what that would even mean. Who is "Rome"? Are you suggesting that there are some people out there who claim that a single person in Rome decided to create a totally fictional story of a fictional Jesus from scratch.

If so I've never heard such an explanation, so I question whether such an explanation could be considered to be a "majority explanation".

My explanation for the origins of Christianity and the rumors of a supposedly "risen messiah" include the fact that the original religion of Judaism supposedly prophesied an event along these line. So these stories of a "Risen Messiah" did not just pop up out of nowhere in a vacuum, as you appear to be suggesting.

I see these rumors having arisen naturally from the existing religious superstitious tales. I seem them as having arisen in a crude form being spread throughout this culture via word of mouth. Obviously containing many different diverse versions of these rumors as well.

Then over a period of many decades of these rumors already being passed around by the masses officials most likely working for Roman authorities eventually collected these lay rumors and wrote them up in official "Gospel writings". These versions of the rumors where then proclaim to be the "Gospel Truth" and anyone speaking out against them would be charged with heresy or blaspheme.

And so that is how this religion became a political weapon and tool to control the masses using rumors that the masses were already well familiar with.

For you to claim that this is a 'vague' explanation is utter nonsense.

Not only that, but you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that even the Christian acceptance of these Gospels rumors is extremely vague. Christians themselves have extremely diverse claims and stories about these official Gospel texts. So much so that they can't even agree with themselves on what might be true.

These Christians have rebelled against their own religious authorities. Protestants have protested against the Catholic Church, and continue to protest against each other as they renounce the Catholic Church.

So any argument that this religion has any merit at all as any message from any actual God is itself without merit. Why would a God create a religion that can't even stand on its own two feet? Even Christians argue passionately against each others views and opinions on this religion.

So the religion itself is the epitome of vagueness.

There's clearly nothing to it. The explanation that it simply arose from the original superstitious religion is quite sufficient.

And your claim that "Rome made it all up from pure scratch" is utterly absurd. That's not even viable explanation at all.

If they "made it up" the didn't make it up from scratch. Obviously there were already rumors out there that the masses were passing around. All the Romans did was take advantage of an opportunity to turn rumors into an official religion that would favor their authority over people. And so that's what they did. Not only is this reasonable, but this is also very likely what an authoritarian regime that is interested in having authority over people would do.

Keep in mind that if you reject their official "Gospels" you'll be declared a heretic and face serious consequences including potentially being killed for your heresy.

If this were a legitimate divine religion from God why should that be the case?

IMHO, you are the one who isn't make any sense in your arguments for this diverse and obviously authoritarian religious dogma. It clearly had a huge political connection when first starting out.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

It is so strange to me that some responses are perfect examples of the very thing that is wrong with atheistic explanations. You have basically said, "My explanation isn't vague" and then proceeded to give the most vague explanation possible.

My explanation for the origins of Christianity and the rumors of a supposedly "risen messiah" include the fact that the original religion of Judaism supposedly prophesied an event along these line. So these stories of a "Risen Messiah" did not just pop up out of nowhere in a vacuum, as you appear to be suggesting.

There is no such thing in history as "rumors saying x".

There is such a thing as Peter (a concrete, real person) starting a rumor saying x, because he has reasons to do so.

Who is the origin of your "rumor"? Why did he/she start it? Why did others accept it? You are relying upon the Vagueness Plausibility that was already described in the OP.

If you don't feel you need anything more concrete, then you are a presuppositionalist, playing at history.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

.and then we imagine a Roman announcer in the streets of Jerusalem saying, "I hereby announce a new deity named Jesus!" And we can imagine a whole crowd just willy nilly saying, "Okay Caesar! I'll accept this Jesus!"

That is concrete. "Rome made it all up" is not.

.....pretttty sure Willum's hypothesis doesn't rely on a street corner announcer. Prettttty sure his hypothesis has Jesus preaching a new variant of the Jewish religion as some sort of undercover agent.
As for Rome made it all up...it's a quick and easy way of summing it all up. If someone proposes "Rome made it all up" are they not allowed to say it like that, do they have to go into extreme detail every time they say it?

What is more plausible, that a man should do a half hour belly dance, or that he should launch a nuclear missile?

You honestly don't know the meaning of the world plausible.

That question would make more sense if you ask "which is more likely, more probable". Everyone has a belly, so it's more likely that a man can do a belly dance, but only a select few people can launch nuclear missiles.
Both actions can still occur in reality though, there really is no question as to whether it's possible to have a belly dance or to launch a nuke.

What is more plausible, that Kim Jong-un should do a half hour belly dance, or launch a nuclear missile?

Again, you're using the wrong word.

What is more likely, that a man should have a ham sandwich, or stab someone with a knife through the back?

Mal-formed question. You don't give us any information at all to go on. For all we know, the person in your question is a Muslim ISIS fighter, who because of his religion, would never eat ham and thus believes it's okay to stab apostates in the back.

Ham sandwich? I live by a subway. Not many assaults occur there.

I hear a lot of knife crime occurs in England. So? Your question is mal-formed.

If a member here responds, "It doesn't matter how concrete or detailed you get, there is still no way for Jesus to have come alive again; the vague plausibility referred to is just as valid" then that person is a presuppositionalist. He can't be argued with; no more than certain Christian fundamentalists can be argued with about the age of the earth. He is not amenable to reason and his presence here is sham.

In trying to support the Christian theory, in the past you have defined it as a miracle, and according to the best of my recollection, you end up having to literally reach outside of reality to pull a God who can do such into existence.
I call you a presuppositionallist. Without presupposing that an all powerful God exists who is able to do such things as raise the dead, allow bodies to phase through stone, change their appearance and fly into the sky without any visible means of propulsion...the Christian theory has no explanatory power. There is no way to justify the explanation that says "Maybe...just maybe...Jesus DID rise from the dead".

Presuppositionalists don't care if they can't find a suitable explanation for the origins of Christianity;

Presupps don't care that in trying to explain something for which there is no evidence for, they literally end up reaching outside of reality to try to prop it up.

They will ask for evidence; but they have already decided before it is given that it must be wrong.

Since you have already decided that there is a God who is able to do everything that the Christian theory says he does do...how is this not describing yourself?

[Bust Nak]

If someone says, "Implausible but still better than a miracle" then that person too is a presuppositionalist and can't be argued with. For what does it matter if the theory is "better" than a miracle. We are asking about "what happened" and if the theory is implausible, why do we talk as if it were not, simply because it is juxtaposed with something we simply won't accept?

Just a suggestion: You could try working within our framework: Provide scientific evidence. We accept those. I mentioned it before, stop trying to convince us that a miracle happened, instead try and convince us that the resurrection isn't a miracle at all.

Presuppositionalists don't care if they can't find a suitable explanation for the origins of Christianity; it doesn't matter if they can't explain it, because they know a priori that the Christian explanation is impossible.

It's not that it is impossible, it is just a priori less preferable to "I don't know what the hell happened."

They will ask for evidence; but they have already decided before it is given that it must be wrong.

Which is why I specify empirical evidence, to remove this wiggle room, we can't just decide that empirical evidence must be wrong.

they behave as if presenting an unsatisfying alternative is magically satisfying because it isn't the Christian one.

That just show how low an expectation Christians have for "satisfying." The question is why the double standard when it comes to anything else?

[Justin108]

If someone says, "Implausible but still better than a miracle" then that person too is a presuppositionalist and can't be argued with.

So believing that something that has never happened before is very unlikely to happen makes me a presuppositionalist?

Which is more likely? That Donald Trump would convert to Islam? Or that Donald Trump turns all Mexicans in the world into potatoes? One is implausible, the other is a miracle. If your reasoning is to be consistent, you would rather believe that Donald Trump turns all Mexicans into potatoes.

Implausible but still better than a miracle

Implausible occurrences are statistically more likely than miracles. We know this because we have never documented a single miracle, whereas there are numerous documented incidences of implausible events happening. Where is the flaw in my reasoning?

Presuppositionalists don't care if they can't find a suitable explanation for the origins of Christianity

Nor should they. As I've said repeatedly to you in all of those threads you've abandoned - one does not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to reject a given claim.

[benchwarmer]

Presuppositionalists don't care if they can't find a suitable explanation for the origins of Christianity

Nor should they. As I've said repeatedly to you in all of those threads you've abandoned - one does not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to reject a given claim.

I think it is also telling that the OP has essentially moved on from supporting a debate position in favor of labeling debate opponents in a weak attempt to divert attention from the lack of convincing evidence to supports one's own position.

A key ingredient to this site's greatness is the attempt by all participants to focus on topics not debate opponents. Once the focus shifts, it's usually a sign the debate is lost.

In short, who cares if your opponents are vague, providing implausible claims, or presupposing things? Shouldn't this give you a window to pounce and show why your evidence is more compelling than theirs? Clearly you should be handily destroying your opponents arguments if such was the case.

Readers will form their own opinion of who has the stronger case.

[Kenisaw]

Vagueness, Plausibility, and Presuppositionalism

Utterly hilarious. The first sentence of your OP is:

The majority of natural explanations for the early proclamation of Jesus' resurrection are extremely vague; the irony is that their apparent strength rests precisely in their vagueness.

Then you write a lot more stuff and never list a question for debate, as per the Forum rules. Talk about an excellent example of vagueness...

[rikuoamero]

Vagueness, Plausibility, and Presuppositionalism

Utterly hilarious. The first sentence of your OP is:

The majority of natural explanations for the early proclamation of Jesus' resurrection are extremely vague; the irony is that their apparent strength rests precisely in their vagueness.

Then you write a lot more stuff and never list a question for debate, as per the Forum rules. Talk about an excellent example of vagueness...

Not to mention that a resurrection is in and of itself vague. How exactly is it accomplished? What exactly happens What can be said beyond "Goddidit"?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

What's more plausible, the strawmen presented in this OP, or a theist actually showing their god exists to get upset 'cause them dang humans?