W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Yeah, I didn’t like it when I found out that my heroes were mere mortals either.
- Status
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Your hero is a mere mortal?Yeah, I didn’t like it when I found out that my heroes were mere mortals either.
What hope do you have then? What is your purpose?
Is it blaspheme to have a hero you don’t like and that is a mere mortal while being a catholic at the same time?
Is truth dependent on what you like?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Of course not. Truth is independent of my existence. Why are you so excited? Get over it. Heroes die everyday. Hate the game not the players.
http://www.motifake.com/image/demot...me-death-demotivational-poster-1259510847.jpg
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I get the feeling from your post that mere mortals are being put on a pedastal somehow.
Must be how you feel when protestants accuse catholics of worshipping Mary I guess.
Must be how you feel when protestants accuse catholics of worshipping Mary I guess.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Where is the shift in meaning?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Yes, it’s a stupid argument. “A” number is going to be picked daily. Every number has the equal chance of being called. So one number being picked is no more extraordinary that any other. Pick 3, Pick 5, Powerball etc, all have finite parameters. We expect “a” number to be picked regardless of what it is. The event happens daily, the results differ based on the odds. We can expect a result, even though it is a 1 in a “x” chance, it is still a expected result within those parameters. If we pick balls we will get a result.
The resurrection isn’t a expected result from people dying. It isn’t as if 1 in every 100 million deaths ( an arbitrary number, whatever the population was up to Jesus’ Death) result in a resurrection and Jesus just happened to be the “winner.” Even if that was the case, With the population growth and subsequent death rate we would expect to see more cases of resurrection, more people, more deaths, more resurrections.
It’s a stupid argument for belief.
H
honestquestions
Guest
An honest Catholic you are.
K
Keeler
Guest
Are you really that dumb? Or simply obtuse? No one speaks of the Venus. We speak of our surroundings and we can know if something is extraordinary or not, even without omniscience.
Hah. You should follow your own advice and keep your nonsense in your head.
And remember the old saying: “it is better to be thought to be a ‘nincompoop’ than to open your mouth and confirm it”. :tsktsk:It is nonsensical, all right. Of course this “translation” only appears in your head. The correct translation is “unbeliveable claims need a lot of supporting, believable and verifyable evidence” to become believable. Not just a few hearsay testimonials.
- The 2 different uses of the word “extraordinary”. To me it looks like the statement is “unbelievable claims require unbelievable evidence”. If one wants extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, then he is asking for evidence as unbelievable as the claim. Which seems nonsensical to me.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Really made you mad too see your idols come crashing down didn’t it? Lets talk about anything but the clearly irrational beliefs they hold. Christian beliefs are fair game, but not your cherished beliefs. Isn’t that kind of thing hypocritical? You know, “I can challenge your beliefs, but you better not challenge mine?”
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjhXZ380aotBYD35d2O8zVL2TnENDNhX_Y8EuOBTbomwLv3DBf
D
danserr
Guest
Don’t confuse ridicule with rational argument and assume that because you have done the former, that you have done the latter.
Who said anything about starting an inquisition? Don’t be ridiculous. Roger Penrose is a Oxford University physicist who has criticized Hawking’s work. I mentioned one reason why as well as a couple other problems with it. You have not refuted my position, only ridiculed it. Stop being so scornful. If you can only ridicule, then don’t post.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
The use of the word “extraordinary”. In the first instance it seems to mean something like “improbable”, in the second it it seems to mean something like “satisfactory”. Otherwise the statement would mean “improbable claims require improbable evidence” which is non-sequitir. If one is suspicious of the claim because it is extraordinary, shouldn’t one be suspicious of the evidence because it is extraordinary? Take the rabbits fossil in the precambrian layers that Strawberry was talking about. If that fossil was found at that layer, no one would immediately think it was evidence disproving a theory, they would first question why that fossil was at that layer, was it an earthquake, was it a meteor strike, etc. Extraordinary evidence would be as suspect as any other extraordinary claim.
So the claim ECREE in this form seems to be either a logical fallacy, equivocation or a non-sequitir. Either way its logical flaws make it a meaningless statement.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Being resurrected is not merely a matter of low probability. It is a matter of impossibility. People do not win the lottery ticket of being resurrected. Jesus performed the resurrection of Lazarus not by holding the winning ticket, but by the infinite power over life and death that was within him. He resurrected himself not by winning yet another improbable lottery, but by his absolute power over life and death. These were the essential proofs of his divinity that he offered. These resurrections had nothing to do with lottery tickets. You believe or you don’t believe. It is what animates Christianity and confounds atheists at the hour of their death.
Two members of my family were lifelong atheists. My grandfather, shortly before he died, asked me to pray for him. My uncle, shortly before he died, began to wear a cross around his neck. Hope springs eternal, even in the most cynical of men … when the occasion is ripe.
As Pascal said, live as if you have eight hours left to live. Suddenly the most important thing in the world looms into view.
Two members of my family were lifelong atheists. My grandfather, shortly before he died, asked me to pray for him. My uncle, shortly before he died, began to wear a cross around his neck. Hope springs eternal, even in the most cynical of men … when the occasion is ripe.
As Pascal said, live as if you have eight hours left to live. Suddenly the most important thing in the world looms into view.
D
danserr
Guest
This is just going to be a general response to some past replies.
Next, the skeptics on this thread are starting to get rather impolite. Stop it.
-Keeler calls someone a nincompoop
-Stawberry ridicules catholics for starting an inquisition
-“honestquestions” accuses me of lying
If you don’t like the argument, fine, say so and why. But turn down the ridicule and scorn a notch and drop this idea that because you can sneer at something that you have rationally refuted it. enough.
There are two claims or events that people are confusing.
Event A- a lottery number is drawn on a certain day.
Event B- On March 28, the lottery number 78954834 is called.
The issue is not a number being drawn but number 78954834 being drawn.
-Event A is probable. On this we all agree.
But, the fact that Event A is probable, does nothing to make Event B probable, as people here are trying to claim. How does the fact that a number is drawn every day make it probable that on March 29, number 78954834 would be drawn? If it were probable that that number would be drawn, then of course we would all go out and buy tickets for it and get rich.
1 is irrelevant to assessing the probability of event 2 because Christians don’t claim that Jesus rose naturally, but that God raised him. Event 1. in no way shows that it is improbable that God raised Jesus.
What the Christian thus has to establish is that it does not matter whether the Resurrection on its own is probable or not. What we must also consider are the chances that the evidence (empty tomb, appearances, origin of belief) would be what it is, if the event did not occur.
It is not an argument for belief; it demonstrates why the pop. internet skeptical claim “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence” is flawed.
Next, the skeptics on this thread are starting to get rather impolite. Stop it.
-Keeler calls someone a nincompoop
-Stawberry ridicules catholics for starting an inquisition
-“honestquestions” accuses me of lying
If you don’t like the argument, fine, say so and why. But turn down the ridicule and scorn a notch and drop this idea that because you can sneer at something that you have rationally refuted it. enough.
It seems like the skeptics here have mostly rested their attempts to defend my attack on EEREE on this point, so I will deal mostly with it.
There are two claims or events that people are confusing.
Event A- a lottery number is drawn on a certain day.
Event B- On March 28, the lottery number 78954834 is called.
The issue is not a number being drawn but number 78954834 being drawn.
-Event A is probable. On this we all agree.
But, the fact that Event A is probable, does nothing to make Event B probable, as people here are trying to claim. How does the fact that a number is drawn every day make it probable that on March 29, number 78954834 would be drawn? If it were probable that that number would be drawn, then of course we would all go out and buy tickets for it and get rich.
- It remains true, however, that that number being drawn represents an extraordinarily improbable event. Which means if EEREE is true, then when that is reported on the news as the winning number, we should refuse to believe it because a news report for something hardly counts as extraordinary evidence. But this is clearly absurd, of course we believe the number was correctly reported.
- We believe the number is correct because we do not only consider the probability of the event, but because we consider also the *probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur. *
- This shows that you cannot proportion your belief only according to the probability of the event. Even if the news media is 99.99 percent reliable, Event B is still incredibly more probable, so if EEREE is true, then we should refuse to believe that news report, but that is clearly not so.
- Think about it. Probability theorists like Mills showed that if EEREE is true, then we should never believe eyewitness testimony to an extraordinary event, since it will always be true that the odds the witnesses are lying are greater than the probability the event would occur. But this is obviously wrong.
- Even the agnostic philosopher of science Earman rejects EEREE and points out that nearly all atheist philosophers do as well. Do you know what he called his study of Humne? Hume’s Abject Failure
amazon.com/Humes-Abject-Failure-Argument-Miracles/dp/0195127382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301333130&sr=1-1
If this were true, then we could never believe any new event or something outside our present experience. Even more, we should never believe eyewitness testimony to an improbable event, which makes no sense at all.
Evidence that dead men don’t naturally rise is irrelevant to assessing the probability that God raised Jesus from the dead, because they are two separate events: 1. dead men rise naturally 2. God raised Jesus.
1 is irrelevant to assessing the probability of event 2 because Christians don’t claim that Jesus rose naturally, but that God raised him. Event 1. in no way shows that it is improbable that God raised Jesus.
What the Christian thus has to establish is that it does not matter whether the Resurrection on its own is probable or not. What we must also consider are the chances that the evidence (empty tomb, appearances, origin of belief) would be what it is, if the event did not occur.
D
danserr
Guest
As I say above, it is impossible naturally. But this naturally impossible does not show that it is impossible or improbable for God to raise Jesus from the dead, which is the issue here.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Then any claim that something is “extraordinary” is meaningless because you don’t really know if its extraordinary, its just your opinion that it is extraordinary. BTW you realize the analogy works just as well if I had said the neighbors garage, as if I had said Venus, right? You weren’t in such a hurry to insult me that you missed that one were you?
Lot of problems with this statement…
- “Believable to you, or any number of people” is just your opinion. Having nothing to do with the actual veracity of the claim.
- supporting, believable and verifyable evidence is not "extraordinary evidence " as EECREE states. So that cannot be the correct translation as you claim.
- “verifyable” is a logical contradiction as all verification/falsification statements are. Obviously, one cannot be intellectually honest and at the same time insist on the validity of an argument that violates the Law of Non-contradiction. A=notA. As Ibn Sīnā said
Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.
This is why I think the situation is so funny, all these people accept logical contradictions and then intimate someone who doesn’t is either dishonest or they don’t understand science. That’s like watching the special ed kids laugh at the math teacher, because he don’t know blue is red! The fact that none of you seem to notice this is hilarious. Its enough to make me think that I am talking to myself.
K
Keeler
Guest
Nonsense. Claim anything you want to, and it is just an unsupported claim. If that claim also goes against the known facts, and goes against the known laws of nature, it is an extraordinary claim. It is not necessary that we know ALL the facts or ALL the laws of nature, it is enough that it goes against the KNOWN ones. That is the POINT you don’t understand, and keep on missing.
Looks like you don’t even know what a logical contradiction is. Sheesh…
J
jonfawkes
Guest
No, You tell me the unbelievable, then show me the unbelievable. The evidence has to meet the claim.
It is an improbable claim that someone has a leprechaun because the common ordinary belief is that they are mythical creatures, not material creatures made of flesh and blood. It is equally improbable that someone could produce a leprechaun for the same reasons. If one is produced, the improbability then has to be reevaluated in light of the new evidence. “well, it seems that leprechauns are actual creatures, how common are they, does the actuality hold up to the myth” etc.
K
Keeler
Guest
In a very good sense it is flawed. Because every claim needs the same kind of evidence - actual, real evidence. It is not necessary to subdivide claims into ordinary and extraordinary claims. We need to use the same criteria for all claims - real evidence.
Depending on the type of the claim, the evidence required is different.
- Claims within an axiomatic system require a formal proof, resting on the axioms.
- Claims about the external reality require actual, real, verifyable evidence. (Something that poor wsp is unable to comprehend.)
- Claims about past events are much more problematic. Some claims refer to events which left actual, physical evidence behind (like a volcano eruption). For these claims the evidence is visible for everyone. Other claims refer to events, which did not leave physical evidence behind. These require solid testimonials, and even in that case they remain somewhat dubious. Solid testimonials mean different people having different viewpoints describing the same event. It is important that we know about these people from other sources, to be able to make a decision about their truthfulness, about their general reliability as witnessess. It is important to know if these witnessess were first hand witnessess or not. The more removed from the events they might be, the more unreliable they are.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
keeler
In a very good sense it is flawed. Because every claim needs the same kind of evidence - actual, real evidence. It is not necessary to subdivide claims into ordinary and extraordinary claims. We need to use the same criteria for all claims - real evidence.
This presumes that all events are rooted in the material world subject to our senses.
If claims concern events rooted in an immaterial or supernatural world, they need not be subject to the same requirements for evidence.
For example, if I claim the existence of God (having experienced God in my spiritual life), you cannot require that God be made visible through a telescope in order that my claim be verified. Nor, when I am dead, can you extract my soul and examine it on a petri dish to see if it truly exists.
In a very good sense it is flawed. Because every claim needs the same kind of evidence - actual, real evidence. It is not necessary to subdivide claims into ordinary and extraordinary claims. We need to use the same criteria for all claims - real evidence.
This presumes that all events are rooted in the material world subject to our senses.
If claims concern events rooted in an immaterial or supernatural world, they need not be subject to the same requirements for evidence.
For example, if I claim the existence of God (having experienced God in my spiritual life), you cannot require that God be made visible through a telescope in order that my claim be verified. Nor, when I am dead, can you extract my soul and examine it on a petri dish to see if it truly exists.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Now you have gone back to the Fallacy of Incredulity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity_.2F_Lack_of_imagination
I know exactly what you mean, I am pointing out the fallacies and logical contradictions that one has to ignore in order to make that argument. I didn’t create logic, or fallacies. Its not my opinion its just the bare logical facts. This isn’t my first rodeo.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles
Yeah, its me that doesn’t understand the subject matter.
- Status