Burden of Answers

[liamconnor]

Both sides have questions which they want satisfactory answers; but are all questions fare?

For instance, many questions raised against Christians are clearly subjective, since they deal with what we might call the 'psychology of God': i.e., Why did Jesus only show himself to his closest disciples? Why did God not immediately eradicate sin within minutes of the so-called Fall? Why choose one man (Abraham) to concentrate on and not communicate universally to all men?

And some Christians require of atheists natural explanations for every aspect of reality: i.e., where does our sense of objective morality come from (note: when they ask this, they are not asking for the origins of the herd-instinct)? If we are naturally evolved from animal ancestry, how did our senses become so dull? How is it that each evolvement of a species consisted in a myriad of changes coinciding simultaneously and compatibly? How is it that we alone have Reason? If the Big Bang happened, what caused it?

(in my experience, a number of atheists here will 'think' they have an answer to all of the questions posed in the second paragraph. Most scientists, of any persuasion, would demur. At any rate, that is not the question for debate, and if you think you know the answers to all those questions, this debate is probably not for you).

QforD: What (in 'your' opinion) are legitimate, reasonable, demands which the opposite side should satisfy before consenting to, or even simply respecting, their position? Examples: Positing the biblical god, are Christians required to know the thought process behind his every action? Or, are naturalists required to explain what caused the Big Bang, or why it happened in one way and not another?


I am hoping this debate does not turn into a focus on each demand and the evidence (or lack there of) for it; this is about 'reasonable expectations' for finite creatures.

[Justin108]

How is it that we alone have Reason?

I wanted to take time out from this interesting discussion to point out this sentence in the OP. Humans are not the only animals that can reason. This has been covered previously in past threads, and perhaps it was written erroneously by the formulator of the OP, but to be safe it is noted here that this is not a true statement.

Carry on fine people.

The highest thought a human being can have and which sits in the inmost parts of his being, is the thought of a Divine Being.

No animal is capable of this.

How do you know what animals are capable of thinking of?

I will assume the question comes from sincerity, and not someone just being difficult. That is, I assume the person thinks there is good evidence that animals enjoy the same mode of consciousness which we do

You don't need the same mode of consciousness we do to believe in some sort of abstract higher power. Animals can make the false assumption that the winds are alive or that thunder is the roar of a predator. Essentially that's no different from believing in a Divine Being. I am absolutely convinced that the origin of religion was man attributing sentience to nature. This is perfectly illustrated by the fact that the Greeks had various gods for various natural phenomena. Essentially what's the difference between an animal thinking thunder is a predator and man thinking thunder is Zeus?

i.e. capable of more than instinctive reactions but actual 'thoughts'

Higher mammals most certainly operate on more than just instinct.

The difficulty facing this person is an explanation for the vasts differences between us and the beasts.

The only difference between humans and other animals is the way we think. That's it. But to define us as non-animal simply because of this single difference is arbitrary. It would be like saying a snake isn't an animal because it has no limbs. Just because a certain animal has a unique trait doesn't mean it's no longer an animal.

It is perhaps an argument from analogy, but it still favors the dichotomist who perceives an almost infinite gap between certain human qualities and their apparent absence in the brutes and insects.

Saying a human isn't an animal simply because he is very smart is like saying a whale isn't an animal because it's very big. Yes, we do have vastly superior intellect compared to other animals, but this does not suddenly make us non-animals. It just makes us intelligent animals.

I have seen beavers build dams to dwell in, but never a second to pray in.

I have seen some animals fly and other animals swim, but at the end of the day, despite their differences, they are both still animals.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 61 by Justin108]

Please read my post and show me where I denied that humans are animals.

I hold to the Aristotelian definition of man as a rational animal.

I simply oppose devil's advocates which like to question propositions they really don't oppose, but do so publicly because it comes from the mouths of their opponents.

Do you think the only difference between humans and animals is posture?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 46 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
So what is the fool-proof, easy explanation for some 500+ disciples claiming their dead leader was not merely raised, but resurrected?

Simple. They claimed it. Doesn't mean it has to be true.

Please point to a place where I said, "Well, they claimed it, therefore it must be true."

If you cannot, perhaps an apology is due, let alone a readjustment of your style of argumentation...?

the ONLY mention of this group of 500 people is from Paul and Paul doesn't count himself as among their number. So it's NOT 500 people claiming their leader was resurrected. It's Paul claiming 500 people saw their leader resurrected.

Probabilities:

Paul is lying about this 500?

The people who told Paul about this 500 are lying?

The 500 are lying?


Please demonstrate by good historical arguments which of these has the highest probability?

Even if we ignore that...so what if 500 disciples claimed their leader was resurrected?

What does it take for 500 1st. Palestinian Jews (the details are important: if you do not know a thing about 1st c. Palestinian Jews, perhaps study up on the beliefs common to them) to claim that they collectively (all at once) encountered their dead leader alive and well?

Looks to me like you're taking 1st century Palestinian Jews to be a monolithic group, and not allowing for any diversity in thought.

Very good! Not sure what site you got that from, but it is appropriate.

However, there are common denominators, and I have these in mind.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 49 by Justin108]

liamconnor wrote:

Common sense? Does common sense include the a priori conclusion that "this cannot happen"?

Rather "since this has never happened before or since, virtually every other explanation is more likely". If a body disappeared from the morgue tomorrow, would resurrection be the most likely explanation?

So your argument is:

"Even if there were a higher power beyond all of this; still, it cannot produce in history anything which history had not already contained."

Is that correct?

Please provide logic for this argument.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 50 by benchwarmer]

Even better, if one reporter wrote a story that 500 people saw the aforementioned dead body roaming around, would that make it the best explanation? Even if the reporter himself didn't see it and could give no names of these witnesses?

Is "what" the best explanation? Many "explanations" have been given throughout this forum. In this particular thread I offered two: a miracle, or a highly improbable pathological phenomenon. Please be more specific. Are you arguing against the explanation that the 500 suffered an hallucination? In which case, what do you think led to the rise of Christianity? Please apply the historical standards of Explanatory Power and Scope, Occam's razor, and Plausibility.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 61 by Justin108]
Please read my post and show me where I denied that humans are animals.

I assume the person thinks there is good evidence that animals enjoy the same mode of consciousness which we do

While not directly claiming we are not animals, the above quote can be interpreted to suggest as much. If that is not your intention then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I simply oppose devil's advocates which like to question propositions they really don't oppose, but do so publicly because it comes from the mouths of their opponents.

I often debate other atheist. See below:
viewtopic.php?t=32965
viewtopic.php?p=875697#875697

Do you think the only difference between humans and animals is posture?

Earlier you stated you do not believe that humans are non-animals, and now you're asking my opinion of the difference between humans and animals. If humans are animals, then the question would make no sense. That would be like asking the difference between a car and a Ferrari.

If you mean what I think the difference is between humans and non-human animals, then I specified earlier on: The only difference between humans and other animals is the way we think.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 49 by Justin108]

liamconnor wrote:

Common sense? Does common sense include the a priori conclusion that "this cannot happen"?

Rather "since this has never happened before or since, virtually every other explanation is more likely". If a body disappeared from the morgue tomorrow, would resurrection be the most likely explanation?

So your argument is:

"Even if there were a higher power beyond all of this; still, it cannot produce in history anything which history had not already contained."

Is that correct?

Please provide logic for this argument.

When did I use the word "cannot"? I specifically avoid such absolutes. I carefully chose the word "more likely" to indicate that resurrection, while conceptually possible, is still highly unlikely.

Even if we made the a priori assumption that a higher power existed, this higher power has never before or since brought someone back from the dead. While this higher power could bring someone back from the dead (assuming the higher power exists), it is still highly unlikely as this higher power has never done this before or since.

If I told you that God himself made me breakfast this morning, you would likely doubt my claim. Not because it is impossible for God to make breakfast, but because God is not known for making people breakfast. In response to your skepticism, I would ask "well if God didn't make my breakfast, then who did?". Virtually every other explanation for who made my breakfast is more likely than God having done it. It's more likely that the Queen of England made me breakfast than for God to have made me breakfast.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 67 by Justin108]



"If I told you that God himself made me breakfast this morning, you would likely doubt my claim. Not because it is impossible for God to make breakfast, but because God is not known for making people breakfast. In response to your skepticism, I would ask "well if God didn't make my breakfast, then who did?". Virtually every other explanation for who made my breakfast is more likely than God having done it. It's more likely that the Queen of England made me breakfast than for God to have made me breakfast."

Disappointing for a man of science to be guessing.

Your 'evolution' planned it from the very beginning - whenever that was.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 67 by Justin108]



"If I told you that God himself made me breakfast this morning, you would likely doubt my claim. Not because it is impossible for God to make breakfast, but because God is not known for making people breakfast. In response to your skepticism, I would ask "well if God didn't make my breakfast, then who did?". Virtually every other explanation for who made my breakfast is more likely than God having done it. It's more likely that the Queen of England made me breakfast than for God to have made me breakfast."

Disappointing for a man of science to be guessing.

Your 'evolution' planned it from the very beginning - whenever that was.

My evolution? At what point did I talk about evolution? Try reading what I said a few more times and try to make a proper response, ok? Can you do that for me?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 50 by benchwarmer]

Even better, if one reporter wrote a story that 500 people saw the aforementioned dead body roaming around, would that make it the best explanation? Even if the reporter himself didn't see it and could give no names of these witnesses?

Is "what" the best explanation? Many "explanations" have been given throughout this forum. In this particular thread I offered two: a miracle, or a highly improbable pathological phenomenon. Please be more specific. Are you arguing against the explanation that the 500 suffered an hallucination? In which case, what do you think led to the rise of Christianity? Please apply the historical standards of Explanatory Power and Scope, Occam's razor, and Plausibility.

I'm sorry, I thought it was clear from the post I was replying to (which you didn't include) that we were discussing:

If a body disappeared from the morgue tomorrow, would resurrection be the most likely explanation?

So the "what" is resurrection.

My point was that if a single reporter made a claim about 500 people seeing that body that disappeared wandering around, would a resurrection become the best explanation for the missing body?

Surely you can see the parallel I (and others) are trying to make here.

You keep talking about the 500 as if there really were 500. There are actually two 'if statements' to clear up, not just one as you seem to keep making out.

IF there were 500 witnesses and IF they actually saw Jesus wandering around.

This is all based on IF Paul was telling the truth. Note I'm not suggesting Paul was intentionally lying. There are many options:
1) Paul flat out lied and made up the whole story.
2) Paul heard the story and embellished it so that there were 500 witnesses.
3) Paul just repeated exactly what he heard.

Note that no option has Paul directly witnessing Jesus himself, so clearly he either heard this, heard this and embellished it, or simply made it all up. What other options are there?

At best, the entire story is hearsay with no corroboration from any other sources, let alone disconnected sources. And you see no problem with that?