Doubt, Courts and Debates

[liamconnor]

Not seldom does a person make a claim only to be met with, "I doubt it; prove it." If asked, "On what grounds do you doubt this claim," the quick reply is, "It is YOUR job to convince me of your claim."

To me this is odd behavior; as if doubt by itself were the rational position and were a conclusive argument.



Question for debate:

Is this kind of inveterate response permissible in court? For instance, if a witness (let's say someone in forensics) were called to testify, and the defense attorney presented the defendants testimony (she fell off the balcony!) is it enough for the witness to say, "I doubt that?" And if asked, "Why?" Is it legitimate for the forensics to answer, "It is YOUR responsibility to convince me the lady fell." Or is it at least expected that the forensics give a ground for his or her doubt, i.e., "The position and trajectory of the victim suggests she was pushed"?

If in court Doubt requires reason, should the same be true in Debates? Why or why not?

[Divine Insight]

I propose that your criterion is theologically driven. Mine, historically. Now, when a person wants to know what happened, does he go to theologians, or historians?

And I simply don't believe you. Also why should I believe you when you have falsely accused so many other people of never offering rational and sufficient alternative explanation when in fact they have?

So you have already placed your credibility as a truth teller in jeopardy. I don't believe that any "Historian" would be as fixated on these stories of Jesus if they didn't also have a huge theological stake in mix as well.

What would it mean historically if Jesus did climb out of a tomb after he had been thought to be dead?

From a purely historical perspective the most rational explanation is that he simply never died in the first place.

So there you go. If you claim to be looking at this from a "Purely Historical" perspective alone with no theological interest in the story, then the idea that Jesus simply never died is the only rational conclusion you can come to.

To come to any supernatural conclusion requires that you become a faith-based theologian, pure and simple.

In fact, read the following stories:

4 People Who Were Buried Alive (And How They Got Out)

There you have 4 people who where believed to be dead and climbed out of their graves.

Man Buried Alive In Brazil Rises From Grave, Gives Mourner Quite The Scare (VIDEO)

This one was pretty recent.

So there you go. If you claim to be viewing the Jesus story as a pure historian then there's absolutely no reason why you should argue for anything OTHER than the idea that Jesus simply never actually died.

To argue for the theological scenario that he died and was resurrected by a God requires that you forfeit being a historian and become a theist instead.

Pure and simple.

So you are not being truthful when you claim to be approaching this purely as a historian. At least you aren't being honest with yourself obviously.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 41 by Divine Insight]

So there you go. If you claim to be looking at this from a "Purely Historical" perspective alone with no theological interest in the story, then the idea that Jesus simply never died is the only rational conclusion you can come to.

Yet that is not taken by the majority of Jesus scholars, including non-Christian ones. Here is a list of non-Christian scholars who do not agree with your theory that Jesus never died; they also don't think Jesus was bodily resurrected:

Sanders, Vermes, Crossan, Ludemann, Ehrman.

Please explain what you know that they do not; please attempt an argument that would convince THEM that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Do you have one which would baffle them and bring them over to your erudite position?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 41 by Divine Insight]

So there you go. If you claim to be looking at this from a "Purely Historical" perspective alone with no theological interest in the story, then the idea that Jesus simply never died is the only rational conclusion you can come to.

Yet that is not taken by the majority of Jesus scholars, including non-Christian ones. Here is a list of non-Christian scholars who do not agree with your theory that Jesus never died; they also don't think Jesus was bodily resurrected:

Sanders, Vermes, Crossan, Ludemann, Ehrman.

Please explain what you know that they do not; please attempt an argument that would convince THEM that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Do you have one which would baffle them and bring them over to your erudite position?

Why should I care what any of these people think?

They would first need to explain to me why they are so certain that Jesus necessarily died. That would certainly be a good place to start a conversation with them.

Also if they aren't Christians and they are convinced that Jesus died, then surely they must also be convinced that he was never seen alive again after that.

So they would then have a Jesus who died and stayed dead.

Keep in mind Liamconnor. I am open to many possible rational and secular explanations. I'm not claiming that any specific scenario must be the truth. So if I had conversations with these men you just listed I might actually agree with all of them that their non-theological secular explanations may very well be quite possible.

Only you (and other theists like you) are the ones who are demanding only one possible explanation. And that appears to be the theological explanation, NOT a historical explanation.

I'm open to many possible secular explanations. I reject the theological explanation because I take the WHOLE THEOLOGY into consideration and find it to be utterly ridiculous and extremely self-contradictory. That's more than sufficient reason for me to reject the theological picture.

And unlike secular materialists I don't even claim that there can't be a supernatural God. But I will say that if such a God exists that God cannot be as the Bible describes because that portrait of a God is self-contradictory and immoral as well.

So I don't even reject the idea of a possible "God". I just reject Hebrew mythology. Just like you most likely reject Islamic mythology.

For all I know the Pantheistic God of Buddhism may very well exist. I have no clue. But the nice thing about the God of Buddhism is that it isn't demanding that I must believe it exists and will damn me if I don't.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by liamconnor]

I have learned from other participants here that speaking in the 3rd person is the craftiest way to avoid mod intervention (that a person can basically insult another but avoid repercussions because he uses indirect pronouns like "one" or "some" or "a person") and perhaps even win some awards (like most civil debater or something) but I will take the risk and use the all too personal "you" because I applaud candor over pretense.

What are you talking about? I see that this is a reply to post 22. I went back and looked at it...nothing there that can be remotely called an insult

The question is whether people rely upon mere doubt without explanation in their attacks.

And to my knowledge, this is rarely, if ever, done on the forum, anyway.

Yes. Specifically with you. Often. In fact, it was our exchanges that prompted this very thread.

Okay, a quote or a link or something would do...

This is a tactic you have used quite often. potest ergo est: "possible, therefore it is."

Ah. So when you claim that the Christian position is true, (and don't support it with evidence), you don't consider other possible explanations that might be true.
Which is more likely to be true?
That some people, (whose identities are unknown to us here in the 21st century) made up, whether knowingly or unknowingly, stories about a body that got up some two or three days after dying, phased through rock, altered its appearance and then after some time flew off into the sky without any method of propulsion...

or body that got up some two or three days after dying, phased through rock, altered its appearance and then after some time flew off into the sky without any method of propulsion?

Although, that is a little too bold for the tactic you employ since you rarely step up and defend a positive position.

Correct. I prefer to expose the many holes in the Christian claim, to challenge it and show it for the ridiculousness that it is.
I have no burden to actually come up with something else. As far as I'm concerned personally, what precisely happened 2,000 years ago is an unknown.

but it would translate, "because my notion does not involve a contradiction, therefore your explanation can't be right."

Is this a not so subtle admission that your own explanation involves a contradiction? Not just in terms of narrative, but contradicting reality itself?

I have rarely, if ever, seen you give reasons for your doubt on this or that particular claim.

Now this is just a bald faced lie. I have many times done so. In fact, in an earlier comment to this comment, you give an example thus
Responding to the claim, "Jesus was raised from the ground" with "I doubt that, prove it" is inferior to the response, "I doubt that because there is overwhelming evidence that dead people do not come back to life as evidenced by all reported deaths apart from religious ones."
That is PRECISELY the explanation that I have given on this forum, MANY TIMES.

IMHO you have relied upon arguments of "possibility", and 'possible' has the lowest degree of historical strength.

Keep telling yourself that.

Responding to the claim, "In 1 Cor. 15 Paul shows that he had received the creed from others," with, "I doubt he received it; how do I know he just didn't make it up right then and there while he was writing that passage," is inferior to a response (I cannot think of one) which gives reasons for doubting Paul's claim, and at least some evidence that it is at the very least plausible he made it up.

It is plausible. He put pen to paper (or whatever writing implements were used). This is true of literally everything anyone has ever written.
You're trying to imply here that some people just cannot be liars.

Note, you give no reasons above for believing that the gospel writers made it up;

Maybe not in post 22 of this thread, but I have done so elsewhere plenty of times.

only that such does not involve a logical contradiction (i.e. possible) and therefore, by that virtue alone, stands as a sufficient counterargument.

Which is a LOT more than can be said for the Christian explanation!

You simply point out (or suggest) the fact that people lie; therefore it is possible that the apostles lied, therefore, potest ergo est, they lied; or, we can never know whether they lied.

No, in my mind it is
You simply point out (or suggest) the fact that people lie; therefore it is possible that the apostles lied, therefore,[strike] potest ergo est, they lied; or[/strike], we can never know whether they lied.
At no point have you ever demonstrated for a fact that they didn't lie.

We can never know whether Plutarch lied, or Herodotus. It is possible (potest) that all our historical knowledge about the past are based on lies.

Yes it is. When it comes to trying to discover what actually happened in years gone by, we have to remain in reality, what we know is possible, and see if it's backed up by anything else, such as physical artifacts.
If an ancient historian writes that a volcanic eruption destroyed a city, we can investigate that, instead of taking him solely at his word.

You have admitted elsewhere that you do not know what happened to spark Christianity;

And it is my belief that no-one does. When someone comes along who says "This is what happened", I challenge that claim.

you seem to think that your admitted ignorance is sufficient grounds to presuppose others could not know more about it than you.

Not a presupposition. A recognition that in all the years I've been investigating this, any and all claims from anyone I've read involve a lot of guesswork and reaching. The Christian explanation requires one to pull into existence a god who they say is able to cause a body to get up after three days of being dead and is also capable of causing the body to fly into the sky without any method of propulsion.

[Divine Insight]

I have rarely, if ever, seen you give reasons for your doubt on this or that particular claim.

Now this is just a bald faced lie. I have many times done so. In fact, in an earlier comment to this comment, you give an example thus
Responding to the claim, "Jesus was raised from the ground" with "I doubt that, prove it" is inferior to the response, "I doubt that because there is overwhelming evidence that dead people do not come back to life as evidenced by all reported deaths apart from religious ones."
That is PRECISELY the explanation that I have given on this forum, MANY TIMES.

Truly.

When someone claims that a dead body came back to life after three days the reasons to doubt that claim should be obvious.

To suggest that people aren't providing rational reasons for their doubt of these claims is utterly absurd.

~~~~

And that would be the standard "Historical Approach" as well. Claims that a dead body was magically resurrected after being dead for three days is NOT a standard historical hypothesis.

~~~~

And finally, even for those of us who are willing to consider the possibility of a supernatural God having done this, I still give rational reasons why I feel that no rational God would have orchestrated such an absurd scenario in any case.

So even allowing that magical gods can exist, I have STILL given rational reasons why I feel that even a magical God wouldn't have done this.

So the claim that people aren't giving rational reasons to reject these claims is indeed a gross misrepresentation of the truth to be sure.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 45 by Divine Insight]

Truly.

When someone claims that a dead body came back to life after three days the reasons to doubt that claim should be obvious.

To suggest that people aren't providing rational reasons for their doubt of these claims is utterly absurd.

I think an initial doubt is quite reasonable. Nearly every character of the N.T. had doubts.

I think "doubt" may have rational grounds, but to move from "doubt" to "fact" is quite irrational.

"I doubt therefore it didn't happen" is not an objective statement.



Now, none of this really has to do with the OP. The OP was about whether statements of doubt required a "because clause" for the doubt.

You seem to suggest that, Yes, statements of doubt should have a "because" clause after it.

And I agree.

Once everyone gets on board, we can start analyzing the various "because" clauses for their merit.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 44 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
I have learned from other participants here that speaking in the 3rd person is the craftiest way to avoid mod intervention (that a person can basically insult another but avoid repercussions because he uses indirect pronouns like "one" or "some" or "a person") and perhaps even win some awards (like most civil debater or something) but I will take the risk and use the all too personal "you" because I applaud candor over pretense.

What are you talking about? I see that this is a reply to post 22. I went back and looked at it...nothing there that can be remotely called an insult

I did not have you in mind when I wrote it. When I write, I have a much broader readership in mind.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 44 by rikuoamero]

Responding to the claim, "Jesus was raised from the ground" with "I doubt that, prove it" is inferior to the response, "I doubt that because there is overwhelming evidence that dead people do not come back to life as evidenced by all reported deaths apart from religious ones."
That is PRECISELY the explanation that I have given on this forum, MANY TIMES.

This does give a "because". The question is, whether, upon investigation, it is rational or has numerous breaches of logic.

So then, the doubt is grounded on the CLAIM that dead people do not come back to life as evidenced by all reported deaths apart from religious ones.

As a Claim, I grant it; reports of dead men coming back to life are "religious". And In doing so, you are in agreement with Christians. Christians do not think Jesus was raised by natural means: they think God did it.

So, to differentiate yourself from Christians, you would need to say, "There is no God to raise a corpse" or "Even if there is a God, He/She/It is powerless to raise a corpse" or "Given a God, it would not want to raise a corpse" or "Given a God capable and willing to raise a corpse, still, there is no evidence He/She/It did so with Jesus".

And all of these would be claims.

The thing is, it does not require a great IQ to sit back and play the "Claim Game": i.e., "You make a claim, and then I will doubt it.' My 10 year old niece can do it. Whether one can follow up and defend the doubt over a numerous exchanges...that is a test.

In my experience, most here can only stick to their initial doubt. Hence I have called many "presuppositionalists".

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by liamconnor]

How about asking the question then, in terms of Christianity?
Was Jesus worthy of being resurrected in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian god?

Let's look at his deeds, and not just the claims.
Did he follow the law?
Did he act unquestionably?
Was he free of sin?

I don't think any of those can be answered with an unequivocal, "yes," therefore he was not worthy of being the saviour. In his own words - "If your eye offends you, pluck it out." Therefore if it was more reasonable to die in the eyes of God than to sin, his story should have ended early.

Also, then, where are the tales of his piety in the previous years of his life? You see, once you peel away all the layers of this onion, you arrive at the truth.

Therefore, in the eyes of a court, he is not worthy of a resurrection, therefore was not.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 44 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
I have learned from other participants here that speaking in the 3rd person is the craftiest way to avoid mod intervention (that a person can basically insult another but avoid repercussions because he uses indirect pronouns like "one" or "some" or "a person") and perhaps even win some awards (like most civil debater or something) but I will take the risk and use the all too personal "you" because I applaud candor over pretense.

What are you talking about? I see that this is a reply to post 22. I went back and looked at it...nothing there that can be remotely called an insult

I did not have you in mind when I wrote it. When I write, I have a much broader readership in mind.

Which is something neither I or other readers would be likely to figure out. You hit the reply button for post 22, which I wrote, which as you well know leaves an indication on your comment that it is a reply to a specific person.