I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3284
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1553 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #1

Post by POI »

To protect the innocent, (for now), I will not divulge the author of this recent statement issued in an extremely long and convoluted thread:

"Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence."

For Debate:

Based upon the given 'evidence' for the claim that a man resurrected from a grave, is it rational to still remain skeptical of this extraordinary claim?

If not, why not?

If so, why so?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #151

Post by JoeyKnothead »

It's sadly amusing, the lengths some theists will go to in order to paint skeptics as being irrational.

I reckon it's to be expected when irrational conclusions regarding religious claims are promoted as virtuous.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #152

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to POI in post #148]
Negative. My one given fact, alone, trumps all your other apparent 'facts'. Deal with it.
You simply continue to demonstrate this is your favorite fact. I do not know what caused you to be a convinced Christian, but I am thinking you would have to admit there was not a whole lot of thinking involved, and you continue to demonstrate not much has changed since you cannot think past this favorite fact.
But I have more too.
I certainly hope so.
There has not been too much of a need to delve into them, based upon your ambiguous responses thus far (i.e.) 'scholars study the facts and evidence, etc etc...'
We have been going at this for over 2 weeks now, and from the start you wanted to insist I give you my favorite fact, but I attempted to explain to you that this sort of thinking is simple minded. However, in these weeks I have certainly supplied you with some of the facts, and evidence, and you cannot deal with these facts, and evidence and therefore resort to your favorite fact because that is all you can do. We started out by simply giving our thoughts as to whether both sides could use facts, evidence, reason, and logic to come to the conclusions they have, and it is my argument that the facts clearly demonstrate this to be the case. You on the other hand want to insist that the facts, evidence, reason, and logic is only on your side, sort of like the thinking you more than likely had when you were a convinced Christian. Not much has really changed, has it? You must, and had to be correct as a Christian, and now you must and have to be correct. Sort of funny how that works, isn't it?
I do not have to suggest anything else really, other than to suggest that rotting corpses do not rise. The rest, we can certainly speculate until the cows come home. Again, we can rule this option out logically.
Are we in an echo chamber now? Again, you act as if I, along with many, many other Christians, including the apostles are not aware that corpse do not rise? We know that already. However, for one to insist, corpse do not rise, therefore a resurrection has never occurred, just does not follow, unless of course you ignore any facts, and evidence to the contrary and cling to a favorite fact. Holding on to a favorite fact is a way to avoid having to deal with the facts we have, sort of like a kid on a playground who cannot argue the facts, and continues to yell the same thing over, and over. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you slice it, you are dealing with the extraordinary (meaning out if the ordinary) and you are simply exchanging an extraordinary tale you would rather not believe despite the facts, and evidence, for any other explanation at all, no matter how extraordinary it may be. The thing is, it is a fact we have the testimonies contained in the NT. It is a fact Paul would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and would have known the claims the other apostles were making from their very lips. It is a fact we can know these men were proclaiming the Resurrection decades after the events. Now, you can certainly stop at the fact that corpse do not rise, and ignore all the other facts and evidence we have. However, this does not in any way eliminate all the other facts, and evidence we have, and it in no way demonstrates one would have to be irrational to believe the claims.
Again, we can rule this option out logically.
Correct! One can use logic and come to the conclusion this option can be ruled out, if they are not interested in investigating all that would be involved. However, it is not irrational to attempt to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. It is very easy to stop at one fact and proclaim the case to be closed, which is exactly what I have been saying. In other words, for one to have come to a conclusion concerning this matter, it takes a whole lot more than simply a few little favorite facts. But again, when one admits to being easily convinced a man rose from the dead, it is not shocking to discover one little fact can convince them otherwise. Easy in, easy out.
Right, and not just where you say, but also in other areas of the Bible.
You continue to demonstrate one who cannot think outside the box of their indoctrination. I do not know what it will take to get you to understand that whatever is said by one author who is contained in the Bible, would have nothing whatsoever to do with what the others may have said. Therefore, when you have more than one author making the same claim, this claim was not made inside the Bible. Rather, it was made outside the Bible long before there was any sort of Bible. You can continue to insist all these claims were made in the Bible, but you are simply showing an ignorance of what the Bible actually is. The Bible does not say anything. The author of Matthew does. The author of Mark does. The author of the 2 letters to Theophilus does. The author of John does. Paul does. Moreover, according to you, you have no way in which to tie these authors together. In other words, since we have no idea who the authors were, this means we could have completely different sources who may not have even known each other, who report the same exact event.
Testimonials are a dime a dozen, for all sorts of 'supernatural' stuff.
Agreed! So then, what sort of facts, and evidence do we have in support of these other claims?
This is why I asked, a few times now... One of my fundamental follow up Q's for you was: What evidence is GOOD evidence?
I have said this over, and over. There have been book volumes authored on both sides of the equation, both using facts, evidence, reason, and logic. There are debates in which arenas are filled with folks who come to listen, and there are times when both sides are considered to win the debate. With all this being the case, if one cannot understand that it is not as simple as throwing a few facts out there, then I do not know what to do. However, this sort of question demonstrates one who is not really willing to think past a few favorite facts.
deposed eyewitnesses? Should we depose these witnesses? Were they deposed? If so, what was the conclusion, if any?
Again, there are certain things we can know as we read the material, whether the material be trustworthy or not. One of the things we can know is, these folks faced severe persecution for what they were proclaiming (not simply what they believed) and we can know they continued to proclaim it decades later. If that is not good enough for you then that is fine by me, but there are critical scholars who have come to the conclusion we can know the apostles at the very least were all convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. How did they come to such a conclusion? By examining the facts, and evidence which cannot be denied. Can this alone lead one to the Resurrection? Not alone, but when you begin to examine all that is involved, you come to realize that one fact alone is not gonna get it either way.
AGAIN, I do not need to provide any alternative conclusion.
Of course not. This is what folks do in order to avoid having to deal with any other facts and evidence. It's the same old thing. "It is not my job to prove that it did not happen." However, whether you deal with the facts or not, we have them. They find a favorite fact which they believe steals the day, and they will not think past this one favorite fact. It is not like they are attempting to arrive at any sort of truth, rather they are simply attempting to win an argument the easiest way they can.
Only that dead rotting bodies do not rise.
And there is that favorite fact.
Further, I do not need any faith to reach the conclusion that the Bible is not trustworthy.
I keep trying to explain to you, whether the Bible is trustworthy or not would not have a thing to do with the facts, and evidence we can know by reading the material.
FAITH would instead involve continuing to reach the conclusion that a rotting corpse rose --- especially after what I highlighted in bold red above.
And again, I do not need an ounce of faith to believe the Resurrection because there are facts, and evidence, and when we have facts, and evidence, no faith is required. The apostles never asked their audience at the time to believe the Resurrection upon faith. Rather, they were pointing to the facts, and evidence.
Spoken like someone who likely does think the Bible is not trustworthy.
This is not that hard. I am acknowledging that there are certain things we can know, whether the material is trustworthy or not. Therefore, I am not going to waste time attempting to defend the trustworthiness of the material when I do not have to. As you should be able to easily see, this does not necessitate that I believe it to be untrustworthy. But hey! You keep saying the same thing over, and over, and I will continue to repeat myself.
Your video proves my point. The video states, and I quote --- "when one requires things follow certain rules, except for one thing without providing an adequate reason for why that thing is exempt from the rules."

Your argument, thus far, is that it is impossible for rotting bodies to rise, UNLESS it says so in THIS book ;) And to boot, we likely agree this book is not trustworthy. You have not provided an adequate reason. Not even close.
As the video brings forth, there can be disagreement over what is considered "adequate". Special pleading occurs when one is asking something to be accepted, without any sort of explanation. My friend, the simple fact there are critical scholars who dedicate their lives to this sort of thing, who are convinced by the facts, and evidence the apostles were convinced they seen the risen Jesus, demonstrates we have the facts, and evidence. I'm sorry but your favorite fact does not trump all this other evidence. I'm sure it does in your mind, but for those who are serious, they understand there is far more to it, and it ain't that simple.
Your argument, thus far, is that it is impossible for rotting bodies to rise, UNLESS it says so in THIS book
As demonstrated above, the book you are speaking of does not say anything. Do you remember when we talked about, being simple minded? You can keep saying the books says it, but I can demonstrate with ease, the book ain't saying anything.
Simply saying 'facts and evidence', over and over and over again, in such an ambiguous fashion, earns you no "brownie points".
I have shared with you some of the facts, and evidence over the last weeks. But again, there is a lot more involved. In other words, one has to be able to think past a favorite fact. I'll say it again. The fact we have critical scholars who are convinced the apostles believed they saw the risen Christ, demonstrates there are facts, and evidence we can know, whether the material is trustworthy or not.
It's not about being my favorite fact, it's about being a damning fact.
It is only "damning" when one ignores all the other facts, and evidence involved. Simply continuing to insist I supply you with the facts, and evidence does not in any way demonstrate there are no facts, and evidence. You seem to admit you did not examine any sort of facts, and evidence to become a convinced Christian. Well, it is not my job, to do your job. I am simply demonstrating one can actually think and come to the conclusion Jesus rose from the dead. You seem to want to insist this is not the case, but all you have is a favorite fact, as if Christians, along with the apostles are not aware of this fact, which goes on to beg the question, why in the world would they proclaim to have witnessed something they knew to be impossible, and which would be next to impossible for anyone to believe, unless there were facts, and evidence in order to convince them?
If one of the options, on this proverbial table, was an option that was not deemed impossible, sure, let's explore the odds.
What I am trying to explain to you is, the odds are not going to get you any closer to the truth. However, as I said, I do not think it is really the truth you are attempting to arrive to, but rather you are simply attempting to win an argument, but examining the odds will not win the argument. The odds have nothing to do with it.
No. I'm supposing you are engaged in fallacious reasoning, of the special pleading variety.
And I have demonstrated you to be in error here, because when there are facts, and evidence involved, no faith is required, nor is it special pleading. This my friend is a fact. If there are facts, and evidence involved, there is no special pleading. You can insist there are no facts, and evidence in support, but this is just wishful thinking. There are plenty of facts, and evidence involved which is exactly why the debate continues. I can assure you there are many, many, extremely intelligent folks who have become convinced by the facts, and evidence. Some of these folks, did not in any way want to become convinced, but they had no choice after examining the facts we have. It is absolutely hilarious for you to suggest these folks have no reason to believe as they do, and that they must have no idea in the least that corpse do not rise. You must be real proud of yourself to be able to come to the correct conclusion, when we have all of these very intelligent folks who are just so irrational. I mean, have you really convinced yourself of this?
I don't think I need to. I think we already agree here, that the Bible is not a trustworthy collection of documents.
I have never come close to saying such a thing. But you are correct, you do not need to demonstrate it is untrustworthy, nor do I need to demonstrate that it would be trustworthy, because it is a fact that we can know certain facts by examining the material, whether it be trustworthy or not.
What facts, and leading to what exactly?
GOOD GREIF! How much time do you think I have? We can know Jesus existed. We can know he had 12 apostles. We can know he was crucified. We can know his followers began to proclaim very early after his death they had witnessed him alive. We can know Paul was a persecutor of Christians. We can know he converted. We can know he traveled the known world for decades planting Churches. We can know Paul would have known the original apostles and would have heard what they were proclaiming from there very lips. We can know that Paul, along with the other apostles were proclaiming this same Resurrection decades later. How much more to you want me to list? And again, according to some of the critical scholars, we can know that the apostles were at the very least convinced they saw the risen Christ. How can we know these things, and many more? Facts, and evidence, my friend. Facts, and evidence.
Further, I can also point out that some educated scholars write about the possible non-existence of Jesus.
I'd like to see that list. I can assure you they are not taken seriously by the main stream. As I have said, one who does such a thing commits intellectual suicide, and takes themselves out of the conversation. It is not shocking in the least for one to do such a thing, because it is hard to actually deal with the real facts. Therefore, the easiest thing to do is to deny, deny, deny. The question here is, do you take these scholars seriously?
My only point here being, please stop telling me scholars exist, who devote their lives to this stuff. I'm exchanging with you. What convinces YOU that a rotting corpse rose from a grave?
Well, I bring this up because it is completely relevant, in that the scholars no matter what side they are on are demonstrating there are facts, and evidence to be dealt with. I mean, you ask me to give you some reasons, and when I do you then want to scold me. Don't act as if the fact the scholars have to admit certain things does not enter into the equation. I'm afraid it does.
Aside from Paul's testimonial, of having an experience while walking from point A to point B, we do not know who wrote what, and when?
Exactly how do you know we do not know who wrote what, and when? I'm wondering where you got this information? Is it an argument you came up with? We do have evidence of who these authors were, and it comes from sources a lot closer to the time then where you are getting your information. But again, we really do not need to argue about that, because it is a fact that we have pretty good evidence the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, and we know that Luke did indeed travel with Paul.
And even if we did, none of them were professionally deposed.
You can continue to insist they be deposed, but the fact of the matter is, there is no doubt these men were severely persecuted, and we can know they continued proclaiming they had witnessed the risen Christ decades after the events. Of course there are those who want to argue that they may not have been persecuted, and if you want to take up that argument I will be glad to, but it will not go good for you, and it is expected because this is what you will have to do. So then, would you rather have one who is deposed? Or would one being persecuted who continues on with what they are proclaiming work? And let us remember, we are not talking about those who simply believed. Rather, we are talking about those who claimed to have witnessed.
Yes, it is. The Bible is comprised of a collection of hand selected writings, many of which written by who-knows-who. We have absolutely NO IDEA the motivations, intent, or other? But what we do know, seems not very trustworthy, from the jump. So why continue to create special circumstances anyways? Just dismiss it.
I am afraid not my friend. What one author has to say has nothing to do with what another has to say. In other words, the authors of the different Gospels, along with the 2 letters addressed to Theophilus and the letters of Paul, are all different authors who report the same event and even if they are not trustworthy there are certain things we can know by reading the different authors.

Well look, I apologize for the tardy response but I have been tied up at work, and I can tell you this will be the case the rest of the week, so I will not be able to respond again until sometime next week.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #153

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am [Replying to POI in post #148]
Negative. My one given fact, alone, trumps all your other apparent 'facts'. Deal with it.
You simply continue to demonstrate this is your favorite fact. I do not know what caused you to be a convinced Christian, but I am thinking you would have to admit there was not a whole lot of thinking involved, and you continue to demonstrate not much has changed since you cannot think past this favorite fact.
At least he has a fact, instead of your continuing to assert as fact what you can't show to be truth.

Paul. Theo. The author. The two letters.

You're still ignoring challenges to your 'facts'.

It's to be expected though, when one thinks eternal life is the reward for ignoring anything that confounds their precious, unproven beliefs.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #154

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #152]

I think that you are making a fundamental mistake in thinking that you do not have the burden of proof; all you have to do is brush off challenges like saying you don't have the time, or nobody can know who wrote what when, and leaning heavily on the witness claim of the gospels.

But in fact the burden of proof has shifted; Paul's early letters at least appear to be reliable.We can date them against events; the Judean famine, the Nabatean attack on Damascus. If we credit the resurrections in Corinthians, we have to accept that they contradict, not support, the gospels. The Gospels also contradict each other, all the way through. The question now arises "Why should we consider these reliable?" The burden of proof is now on the believer to validate them, and refusal to do it just proves our case. Undertaking to do so has not gone as badly for the Bible critic as you threaten. Rather the believer ends up taking refuge in personal denial of plain evidence or silence.

But if we get a discussion, we'll see.

Looking back:
Realworldjack wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 11:08 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 7:48 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 3:07 am My friend, Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb, and these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead.
Or so the story goes.
Are you attempting to argue that Jesus crucified, dead, placed in a tomb, with his followers proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead, may simply be a story? I mean, don't just throw this out there, come and join the conversation. However, I highly doubt you are going to do that. At least not attempting to make such an argument.
Yes. Or at least, a story based on a credible event. What you doubt we will dare to argue doesn't signify. Your bluff is called. Already you have lost because you are already trying to wish away the argument by dickering with epistemology and semantics. Notably your misunderstanding of 'Facts'.

The case is that the whole of Christianity depends on the credibility of the resurrection. That credibility is very much called into question not only by the four contradictory accounts, but by Paul. I even think a good case can be made for the one thing they agree on - the empty tomb - as being a made up story. The claim of what the disciples were proclaiming or being persecuted for is just a claim without substantiation, when it comes down to it.

Yes, the religion caught on and became successful, but I can tell you that this does not validate the claim to gospel validity as much as is hoped by those making that argument.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #155

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am And again, I do not need an ounce of faith to believe the Resurrection because there are facts, and evidence, and when we have facts, and evidence, no faith is required. The apostles never asked their audience at the time to believe the Resurrection upon faith. Rather, they were pointing to the facts, and evidence.
Except that there is no actual evidence that a three day old corpse was reanimated.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #156

Post by JoeyKnothead »

brunumb wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 7:16 am
Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am And again, I do not need an ounce of faith to believe the Resurrection because there are facts, and evidence, and when we have facts, and evidence, no faith is required. The apostles never asked their audience at the time to believe the Resurrection upon faith. Rather, they were pointing to the facts, and evidence.
Except that there is no actual evidence that a three day old corpse was reanimated.
I think this is why so many theists wanna argue that a claim itself is evidence for that claim.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #157

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #149]
You haven't been stating facts. You state claims and pretend they are facts.
What you need to do is to demonstrate where I have stated something to be a fact, which would not be a fact, instead of simply making this claim.
This is how you arrived a the Bible being true (because the claims are facts)
This is what is called "fake news" my friend. Because, I have not in any way defended the Bible as being true.
and why POI doesn't see the Bible as true (because they recognize that claims are claims, not facts).
I have not suggested the claims contained in the Bible are true. What I have said is, there are certain things we can know by reading the material, whether the material be trustworthy or not. If I have said this, (and I have on more than one occasion) this should demonstrate that I am not defending the Bible as being true, nor am I insisting the claims made there in must be true.
Bingo, the claims in the Bible are not evidence nor facts. Claims are claims and you should stop pretending that claims are evidence or facts.
Oh? So, what the prosecutor presents is evidence, but what the defendant presents would not be evidence? Let me ask you, would the testimony of witnesses the prosecution calls to the stand be considered evidence? I think it is, since the most widely form of evidence used in a court is testimony. Therefore, the testimony of the defendant would be considered evidence as well.
Nope. A defendant would be making claims. If the claims are not true, then the claims are neither evidence or facts.
This is SO, SO, FUNNY! Okay, what would the testimony of the defendant be, if what he is reporting would be fact? Again, so you are suggesting that the witnesses called by the prosecution would be evidence, but not that of the defendant? What happened to, innocent until proven guilty? My friend, all testimony is considered evidence, until the testimony has been proven false. It is what is called, "testimonial evidence". And again, it is the most widely used form of evidence in a court of law.
You prove my point! See the claim and do you see how you unjustifiably called it a fact? Surely you see what you are doing as you just did it again?
You need to read more carefully, because you are only understanding what I am saying in the way in which you want to understand it. Let's look at my statement again,
realworldjack wrote:Therefore, it is a fact that we have one who addressed his audience at the time that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" and in this same letter this author goes on to report a resurrection. Everything said here would be a fact.
So then, what am I saying would be a fact? It would be a fact, we have a letter in which the author assures his audience at the time he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" and in this same letter this author goes on to report a resurrection. This is what would be a fact. What he reports to his audience may not necessarily be fact.
Gah! Still claims...
They are claims which are considered evidence until proven otherwise just like in a court of law.
This is why they are claims and not facts nor evidence. You debate for me!
Again, it is what is called testimonial evidence, and it is the most widely used form of evidence. We cannot simply assume testimony to be false, and therefore testimony is considered evidence. It is not considered to be fact, but it is indeed considered to be evidence. My friend, it is a fact these claims are evidence of something. One way or the other.
When you call claims, 'facts' and/or 'evidence' that is exactly what you are doing.
You will have to demonstrate where I have suggested the claims would be fact. What I have said is, it is a fact we have the claims. All claims are evidence of something one way or the other.
You don't seem willing to stop either, but I assume that is due to the emotional baggage attached to the claims from your preferred holy book, so don't really fault you too much.
I can assure you that I do not carry any sort of "emotional baggage attached to" any sort of "holy book", since I am on record here on this thread saying, "I wish the Bible had never been composed". The fact of the matter is again, you need to demonstrate where I have stated something to be a fact, which would not be a fact, instead of attempting to transpose the way in which you thought when you were once convinced into the way you read what I have said.
Lol!!!!
It's a fact that I have a dog and that dog is a cat!
Dogs are not cats and claims are not evidence.
Right! And when one resorts to this sort of silliness they take themselves out of the conversation. There are not any scholars who are dedicating their lives to the claims you are making, but I can assure you there are countless scholars who have dedicated their lives to the study of the facts, and evidence surrounding the claims of the Resurrection, because there are some claims which are to be taken seriously. So, if you continue with this sort of thing, I have no time for it. It simply demonstrates one with whom it did not take a whole lot to convince them a man rose from the dead, and now they continue to demonstrate such thinking as they resort to such silliness.
POI is examining claims made in a book and you think you are reading facts.
You have two errors in this one short sentence. First, none of the claims were made in a book. Rather, all the claims were made outside a book, long before any sort of Bible. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern as to anyone else ever reading these letters other than the intended audience and they certainly had no idea about a Bible.

Next, I have not suggested the claims made would be fact.

User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #158

Post by AquinasForGod »

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I think so. I remained skeptical of Jesus resurrection until God granted me the grace to be fully convinced.

It is not an easy thing to accept a man rose from the dead, but one should look at the minimal facts argument by Garry Habermas. And one should watch the debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman, for it was actually something Bart Ehrman said that brought my confidence in the resurrect from about 5% to 50%. During that debate he says, here is an idea to answer all the historical facts, then he says, but I don't even believe this is correct. In other words, he doesn't even believe his best attempt to answer the historical facts under physicalism.

Historians pretty much gave up on giving a physical explanation for the historical facts. They say, well we don't know, which is at least honest.

Even if one goes through all this, it is still reasonable to doubt, especially if they don't believe in God. But if one believes in God, then the best explanation for the historical facts is clearly that he rose.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3284
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1553 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #159

Post by POI »

Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am [Replying to POI in post #148]
Negative. My one given fact, alone, trumps all your other apparent 'facts'. Deal with it.
You simply continue to demonstrate this is your favorite fact. I do not know what caused you to be a convinced Christian, but I am thinking you would have to admit there was not a whole lot of thinking involved, and you continue to demonstrate not much has changed since you cannot think past this favorite fact.
Nice try at the smearing of my intellect. Let's remain focused here. Thus far, I have not had to issue any more facts, other than rotting bodies do not rise.
Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am We have been going at this for over 2 weeks now, and from the start you wanted to insist I give you my favorite fact, but I attempted to explain to you that this sort of thinking is simple minded. However, in these weeks I have certainly supplied you with some of the facts, and evidence, and you cannot deal with these facts, and evidence and therefore resort to your favorite fact because that is all you can do. We started out by simply giving our thoughts as to whether both sides could use facts, evidence, reason, and logic to come to the conclusions they have, and it is my argument that the facts clearly demonstrate this to be the case. You on the other hand want to insist that the facts, evidence, reason, and logic is only on your side, sort of like the thinking you more than likely had when you were a convinced Christian. Not much has really changed, has it? You must, and had to be correct as a Christian, and now you must and have to be correct. Sort of funny how that works, isn't it?
Another <intellect smear>, with a <nothing sandwich> mixed in, for good measure.
Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am Are we in an echo chamber now? Again, you act as if I, along with many, many other Christians, including the apostles are not aware that corpse do not rise? We know that already. However, for one to insist, corpse do not rise, therefore a resurrection has never occurred, just does not follow, unless of course you ignore any facts, and evidence to the contrary and cling to a favorite fact. Holding on to a favorite fact is a way to avoid having to deal with the facts we have, sort of like a kid on a playground who cannot argue the facts, and continues to yell the same thing over, and over. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you slice it, you are dealing with the extraordinary (meaning out if the ordinary) and you are simply exchanging an extraordinary tale you would rather not believe despite the facts, and evidence, for any other explanation at all, no matter how extraordinary it may be. The thing is, it is a fact we have the testimonies contained in the NT. It is a fact Paul would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and would have known the claims the other apostles were making from their very lips. It is a fact we can know these men were proclaiming the Resurrection decades after the events. Now, you can certainly stop at the fact that corpse do not rise, and ignore all the other facts and evidence we have. However, this does not in any way eliminate all the other facts, and evidence we have, and it in no way demonstrates one would have to be irrational to believe the claims.
This goes back to standards for evidence. Seems you have a lower standard for accepting a testimonial claim -- (as evidence). You have a claim from Paul, who claims to have had an experience from point A to point B. You then have some other stuff, contained in the Bible, which we likely both agree is not a trustworthy document. Thus, we have a singular claim of a dude experiencing something from an external agency. I can walk down any metropolis and see people claiming they receive contact from external agencies, on the daily. Oh, but that's right.... The untrustworthy book says Paul was one of the chosen for Jesus-God to speak with. I almost forgot ;)
Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am Correct! One can use logic and come to the conclusion this option can be ruled out, if they are not interested in investigating all that would be involved. However, it is not irrational to attempt to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. It is very easy to stop at one fact and proclaim the case to be closed, which is exactly what I have been saying. In other words, for one to have come to a conclusion concerning this matter, it takes a whole lot more than simply a few little favorite facts. But again, when one admits to being easily convinced a man rose from the dead, it is not shocking to discover one little fact can convince them otherwise. Easy in, easy out.
It is not irrational to rule it out. You have an impossible claim from Paul, followed by a collection of untrustworthy documentation. It should be ruled out, via rationality alone.
Realworldjack wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:54 am You continue to demonstrate one who cannot think outside the box of their indoctrination. I do not know what it will take to get you to understand that whatever is said by one author who is contained in the Bible, would have nothing whatsoever to do with what the others may have said. Therefore, when you have more than one author making the same claim, this claim was not made inside the Bible. Rather, it was made outside the Bible long before there was any sort of Bible. You can continue to insist all these claims were made in the Bible, but you are simply showing an ignorance of what the Bible actually is. The Bible does not say anything. The author of Matthew does. The author of Mark does. The author of the 2 letters to Theophilus does. The author of John does. Paul does. Moreover, according to you, you have no way in which to tie these authors together. In other words, since we have no idea who the authors were, this means we could have completely different sources who may not have even known each other, who report the same exact event.
POI ~40% of what we now know of the 'NT" is from Saul/Paul. The rest, who knows exactly who wrote it, when, and exactly what motivations were involved. But what we do know about the rest, via later discovery, looks to be untrustworthy. Rationality deems one dismissing the claim.

U Agreed! So then, what sort of facts, and evidence do we have in support of these other claims?

POI None. I already mentioned Matthew 27:52-53. Aside from the claim alone, we've got nuttin else. But it seems the ancients, who wrote this stuff, thought rotting bodies coming back to life was something that does happen --- (more than once). And yet, both you and I do not?

U I have said this over, and over. There have been book volumes authored on both sides of the equation, both using facts, evidence, reason, and logic. There are debates in which arenas are filled with folks who come to listen, and there are times when both sides are considered to win the debate. With all this being the case, if one cannot understand that it is not as simple as throwing a few facts out there, then I do not know what to do.

POI And I'll say this AGAIN. I'm asking you. What evidence is GOOD evidence, that a rotting corpse rose from its grave. I'm not asking them, I'm asking YOU.

U Again, there are certain things we can know as we read the material, whether the material be trustworthy or not. One of the things we can know is, these folks faced severe persecution for what they were proclaiming (not simply what they believed) and we can know they continued to proclaim it decades later. If that is not good enough for you then that is fine by me, but there are critical scholars who have come to the conclusion we can know the apostles at the very least were all convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. How did they come to such a conclusion? By examining the facts, and evidence which cannot be denied. Can this alone lead one to the Resurrection? Not alone, but when you begin to examine all that is involved, you come to realize that one fact alone is not gonna get it either way.

POI I'm afraid being trustworthy means more than you would want to admit. It is from this deemed untrustworthy collection of writings, for which the claim(s) also originate. Again, none of these 'witnesses' were deposed. Only the 'claim' they were later martyred. Since they were not deposed, and there exists no formal recordings of what was said by these folks, you got nuttin. All we have is that a group of folks were collected and killed, as attested to by the untrustworthy collection of documents.

U And again, I do not need an ounce of faith to believe the Resurrection

POI Yes, you do. You have Saul/Paul's testimony, along with a collection of untrustworthy documents. That's really about it...

U Do you remember when we talked about, being simple minded?.

POI More attempts at smearing my intellect. Seems you are either unwilling, or unable, to place forth your arguments in categories. Thus far, the best you can offer, is that scholars present 'facts and evidence." Well, again, what 'facts and evidence' leads one to believe a rotting corpse rose from his grave? It does not take a simple-minded person to issue the categories, which lead them to this conclusion. A matter of fact, quite the contrary. I'm asking you to consolidate your argument(s) into categories. Case/point (example):

"I believe because":

1) empty tomb
2) all witnesses martyred
3) writings, from multiple people, about the same event
4) etc

You see, it's not that hard to consolidate. Is each category extensive? Yes. Thus far, your "favorite fact" looks to be option 3)? If so, I already responded. You have Paul's testimony, along with a collection of untrustworthiness to boot.

U What I am trying to explain to you is, the odds are not going to get you any closer to the truth. However, as I said, I do not think it is really the truth you are attempting to arrive to, but rather you are simply attempting to win an argument, but examining the odds will not win the argument. The odds have nothing to do with it.

POI And this brings us right back to the beginning of our exchange. You will continue to be able to proudly argue the claim, because it is not falsifiable. We cannot prove what did or did not happen 2K years ago. But the question remains, what is more rational, to continue to doubt the claim of the resurrection, or to accept the claim? I'm on one side, you are on the other.

U And I have demonstrated you to be in error here, because when there are facts, and evidence involved, no faith is required, nor is it special pleading. This my friend is a fact. If there are facts, and evidence involved, there is no special pleading. You can insist there are no facts, and evidence in support, but this is just wishful thinking. There are plenty of facts, and evidence involved which is exactly why the debate continues. I can assure you there are many, many, extremely intelligent folks who have become convinced by the facts, and evidence. Some of these folks, did not in any way want to become convinced, but they had no choice after examining the facts we have. It is absolutely hilarious for you to suggest these folks have no reason to believe as they do, and that they must have no idea in the least that corpse do not rise. You must be real proud of yourself to be able to come to the correct conclusion, when we have all of these very intelligent folks who are just so irrational. I mean, have you really convinced yourself of this?

POI There exists no facts, regarding (a resurrection claim). A man living, working as a carpenter, later becoming an apocalyptic preacher, and then being executed for heresy, presents NO facts or evidence that his rotting body rose from a grave. When you begin with an untrustworthy collection of documents, for the resurrection claim, (i.e.) who saw him rise, the tomb was empty, etc, you have a recipe for special pleading, faith/wishful thinking, etc... But sure, I'll just grant the former 'facts' without contest --- that he lived, worked, preached, and was executed.....

Again, by your provided video, the author defines 'special pleading' as "when one requires things follow certain rules, except for one thing without providing an adequate reason for why that thing is exempt from the rules.". Using an untrustworhy source is not an adequate reason.

U Well, I bring this up because it is completely relevant, in that the scholars no matter what side they are on are demonstrating there are facts, and evidence to be dealt with. I mean, you ask me to give you some reasons, and when I do you then want to scold me. Don't act as if the fact the scholars have to admit certain things does not enter into the equation. I'm afraid it does.

POI It is not relevant. I brought up that some scholars argue Jesus may not have existed to prove a point... Meaning, I already know that. I do not agree with them necessarily, and yet, I know scholars write about this 'fact'. But I'm not asking them, I'm asking you. So please stop telling me 'Scholars argue facts and evidence'. It's pointless. Why do you believe a rotting corpse rose? I already concede that he was born, lived, preached, and was killed. What evidence, OUTSIDE the untrustworthy collection of publication, leads you to believe he actually rose? Paul alone? Other?

U Exactly how do you know we do not know who wrote what, and when? I'm wondering where you got this information? Is it an argument you came up with? We do have evidence of who these authors were, and it comes from sources a lot closer to the time then where you are getting your information. But again, we really do not need to argue about that, because it is a fact that we have pretty good evidence the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, and we know that Luke did indeed travel with Paul.

POI Are you saying we DO know who wrote it, and that it was also a trustworthy collection of writings to affirm a risen rotting corpse?

U You can continue to insist they be deposed, but the fact of the matter is, there is no doubt these men were severely persecuted, and we can know they continued proclaiming they had witnessed the risen Christ decades after the events. Of course there are those who want to argue that they may not have been persecuted, and if you want to take up that argument I will be glad to, but it will not go good for you, and it is expected because this is what you will have to do. So then, would you rather have one who is deposed? Or would one being persecuted who continues on with what they are proclaiming work? And let us remember, we are not talking about those who simply believed. Rather, we are talking about those who claimed to have witnessed.

POI Well, they were NOT deposed. Thus, your lawyer friend would question that fact alone. Further, the source for your response here is predicated upon a collection of untrustworthy documents.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

Post #160

Post by Clownboat »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:45 am What you need to do is to demonstrate where I have stated something to be a fact, which would not be a fact, instead of simply making this claim.
From post #152 alone, let's examine your facts shall we and see just how much we learn from all your facts and evidence?

- However, in these weeks I have certainly supplied you with some of the facts, and evidence, and you cannot deal with these facts, and evidence and therefore resort to your favorite fact
- it is my argument that the facts clearly demonstrate this to be the case.
- unless of course you ignore any facts, and evidence to the contrary and cling to a favorite fact.
- Holding on to a favorite fact is a way to avoid having to deal with the facts we have, sort of like a kid on a playground who cannot argue the facts
- you are simply exchanging an extraordinary tale you would rather not believe despite the facts, and evidence
- it is a fact we have the testimonies contained in the NT. (those are claims in a religious holy book promoting a specific religion, you pretend claims are facts here).
- is a fact Paul would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and would have known the claims the other apostles were making from their very lips. (See this bold part you claim is a fact? Please evidence this fact clearly as I would hate to find out he only met a few of them and many years after his conversion).
- It is a fact we can know these men were proclaiming the Resurrection decades after the events. (See your own word in bold? Even you know this fact that you are referring to is nothing more than a proclamation. Claims/proclaiming something is not the same as to be providing a fact. This is where you error and POI doesn't).
- you can certainly stop at the fact that corpse do not rise (This is a true fact. So good on you here).
- and ignore all the other facts and evidence we have.
- However, this does not in any way eliminate all the other facts, and evidence we have
- You can continue to insist all these claims were made in the Bible, but you are simply showing an ignorance of what the Bible actually is. The Bible does not say anything. (You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The Bible is the ONLY place we can find these claims and when it comes to the gospels, we don't even know who wrote them or when. This is a fact, not a claim by the way).
- (Continuation on your claim that the Bible doesn't make claims and that the authors do). The author of Matthew does. The author of Mark does. The author of John does. (Please provide your evidence for who the author of Matthew, Mark and John is as I currently do not trust your 'claim').
- There have been book volumes authored on both sides of the equation, both using facts, evidence,
- How did they come to such a conclusion? By examining the facts, and evidence which cannot be denied.
- This is what folks do in order to avoid having to deal with any other facts and evidence.
- However, whether you deal with the facts or not, we have them.
- whether the Bible is trustworthy or not would not have a thing to do with the facts, and evidence we can know by reading the material. :lol:
- The apostles never asked their audience at the time to believe the Resurrection upon faith. Rather, they were pointing to the facts, and evidence.
Romans 3:28
New International Version
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

- the simple fact there are critical scholars who dedicate their lives to this sort of thing, who are convinced by the facts, and evidence the apostles were convinced they seen the risen Jesus, demonstrates we have the facts, and evidence.
- I have shared with you some of the facts, and evidence over the last weeks.
- I'll say it again. The fact we have critical scholars who are convinced the apostles believed they saw the risen Christ, demonstrates there are facts, and evidence we can know, whether the material is trustworthy or not. (There are facts, but you wont allude to them, but they are facts because of an argument from authority that doesn't apply to other religions. Nice!)
- It is only "damning" when one ignores all the other facts, and evidence involved.
- And I have demonstrated you to be in error here, because when there are facts, and evidence involved, no faith is required
- There are plenty of facts, and evidence involved which is exactly why the debate continues.
- I can assure you there are many, many, extremely intelligent folks who have become convinced by the facts, and evidence.
- but they had no choice after examining the facts we have.
- nor do I need to demonstrate that it would be trustworthy, because it is a fact that we can know certain facts by examining the material, whether it be trustworthy or not. (Yup, this is a direct quote!)
- How can we know these things, and many more? Facts, and evidence, my friend. Facts, and evidence.
- because it is hard to actually deal with the real facts.
- the scholars no matter what side they are on are demonstrating there are facts, and evidence to be dealt with.

(This one stands out)
- I do not need an ounce of faith to believe the Resurrection because there are facts, and evidence, and when we have facts, and evidence, no faith is required.
Please point to the evidence that shows it to be a fact that Jesus resurrected and explain how this fact removes the need for faith.

Just look at all the facts and evidence you allude to, without actually providing any actual good facts or evidence. It seems to stand that claims made in religious holy books are not facts and evidence no matter how bad you want them to be. Which is good because you would be a Muslimchristianbuddihst if you read the claims from their holy books.

Just imagine that I thought I saw you shoot Bob. I even testified that I witnessed such a thing and was even persecuted by your family for making my claim. Have I actually shown it to be a fact that you shot Bob or do you acknowledge that I'm making a claim that has yet to be shown to be a fact or a mistake on my part? What if I pretend that my claim is a fact, now are you guilty? What if I pretend super duper hard that my claim is a fact, now did you shoot Bob? How can you overcome the facts and evidence that I have supplied after all? Furthermore, you family was really mean to me. I think one of them might have even kicked my dog. Surely now my claims are evidence that you shot Bob?

Just provide the fact that removes the need for faith in the resurrection and stop just alluding to it like you have been doing in your posts. Now is the time to put me in my place with these facts and evidence that removes the need for faith to believe that a demigod rose from the dead. I'm all ears, but will it be better than my evidence for you having shot Bob? That we will have to wait and see.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply