Reasonable Doubt

[VociMike]

Faulty analogy.

You are claiming that the universe coming into being on its own is a crazy story. That is, that both explanations are essentially the same.

But you offer no support for this claim.

Actually I am making no claim. I am simply applying the claim as made by the OP to another event that happened (we believe) far in the past, in order to see if it seems equally reasonable when applied to that claim.

 

[patg]

Um… no. The point is that the witnesses were credible.

See Habermas,* The Theory of Communicative Action*

Habermas claimed that four validity claims exist for a communicative action to take place between two or more people:

The witnesses for Jesus in history met these criteria for the validity of their claims.

The witnesses you refer to are not sufficient in this manner because they are not objective verifiable witnesses. The stories in the gospels were preserved by people who already believed in Jesus. There are no contemporary reports of resurrections or other miracles from any outside witnesses who weren’t already heavily invested in him.

Would you believe in the safety of cigarettes based only on the very extensive eyewitness testimony of the tobacco executives? Or in the safety of a particular car based solely on statements from its manufacturer?

What about the 500 who rose from their graves after the crucifixion? Is it not probable that someone besides one gospel author may have noticed them wandering about?

Add to this the questionable status of gospel authors as eyewitnesses (and in the case of Paul, no witness at all) and you return to the premise that all belief in events in the scriptures is based on faith alone.

 

[bilop]

Actually, the Gospels are hearsay not direct testimony.

St. John the Evangelist is generally believed to have written his gospel, and certainly was an eyewitness. In fact, modern biblical scholarship dates all the gospels to the 1st century A.D. It is likely that Matthew and Mark also played a large role in composing their gosples. The 19th Century “revisionists” who tried to claim the evangelists didn’t write the gospels are now considered to be wrong.

God Bless.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

VociMike:

Actually I am making no claim.

You are making a claim. That claim is in the form of a faulty analogy.

VociMike:

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that the universe simply came into being on its own, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?Yes, I believe we do.

You say “yes, I believe we do.” Therefore in essence you are saying the following:

if we say that it is reasonable to believe that a universe came into being on its own,

then we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant.

This is a faulty analogy because a universe came into being on its own has no similarities to accepting a crazy story from a criminal defendant. Or at least you have not demonstrated any similarity.

VociMike:

I am simply applying the claim as made by the OP to another event that happened (we believe) far in the past, in order to see if it seems equally reasonable when applied to that claim.

And your application is a claim which is a faulty analogy.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

patg:

The witnesses you refer to are not sufficient in this manner because they are not objective verifiable witnesses. The stories in the gospels were preserved by people who already believed in Jesus.

Ah. I see that you are unaware of the historical witnesses. We are not talking about gospel authors.

 

[patg]

Ah. I see that you are unaware of the historical witnesses. We are not talking about gospel authors.

Yes I am unaware of them - mainly because there aren’t any.

 

[patg]

St. John the Evangelist is generally believed to have written his gospel, and certainly was an eyewitness. In fact, modern biblical scholarship dates all the gospels to the 1st century A.D. It is likely that Matthew and Mark also played a large role in composing their gosples. The 19th Century “revisionists” who tried to claim the evangelists didn’t write the gospels are now considered to be wrong.

By whom and in what capacity? This change must be a really big secret among scripture scholars.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Faulty analogy.

You are claiming that the universe coming into being on its own is a crazy story. That is, that both explanations are essentially the same.

But you offer no support for this claim.

I could be wrong, but VociMike seems to have been demonstrating the poor logic of the OP’s claim, not making an illogical claim of his own.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I could be wrong, but VociMike seems to have been demonstrating the poor logic of the OP’s claim, not making an illogical claim of his own.

Ammonius Saccus:

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that God became a man, was crucified, died, and rose from the dead after three days, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?

Voci Mike:

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that the universe simply came into being on its own, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant? Yes, I believe we do.

VM is agreeing with the OP. The claims made by the OP and by VM are both faulty analogies. Therefore both claims are illogical. Therefore VM’s claim is illogical.

 

[VociMike]

Ani_Ibi:
VM is agreeing with the OP. The claims made by the OP and by VM are both faulty analogies. Therefore both claims are illogical. Therefore VM’s claim is illogical.
Sigh. No, VM is not agreeing with the OP. VM was inserting a provocative rejoinder to spice up the discussion.

For the record, VM does not actually agree with the OP, nor with the proposition that VM put forth. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Gee, no historical witnesses are permitted because all the countless ones listed actually happen to ‘agree’ with the ‘story’ and thus could not possibly be unprejudiced?

Have you forgotten that the Jewish leaders (such as Gamaliel) actually noted the ‘facts’ of the story --and were not in agreement that the resurrection happened–yet were apparently so worried about the effect on the people–in spite of many ‘previous’ candidates for Messiahdom whose cults sprang up and ‘vanished’ with the death of said Messiah–that they whipped, persecuted and actually killed people who 'spoke up for Jesus?"

Here are a LOT of witnesses who took the story pretty darn seriously. They had, as well, absolutely no evidence that the story was not true–no body to present, thousands of people being cured etc. . .and Gamaliel himself acknowledged that ‘if this movement is of God–and therefore by extension truth’–it will continue, and if you try to hinder it, you are in danger of going against the will of God.’

 

[patg]

Gee, no historical witnesses are permitted because all the countless ones listed actually happen to ‘agree’ with the ‘story’ and thus could not possibly be unprejudiced?

I didn’t say they weren’t permitted, I just mentioned how ridiculous it is to treat them as historical, objective witnesses (and the only witnesses)…

Have you forgotten that the Jewish leaders (such as Gamaliel) actually noted the ‘facts’ of the story --and were not in agreement that the resurrection happened–yet were apparently so worried about the effect on the people–in spite of many ‘previous’ candidates for Messiahdom whose cults sprang up and ‘vanished’ with the death of said Messiah–that they whipped, persecuted and actually killed people who 'spoke up for Jesus?"

Trying to eliminate a troublesome cult is hardly the same as saying you agree with them. There is not a single non-follower who states that Jesus rose for the dead. There are many who state that the Chrsitians say that He did.

Here are a LOT of witnesses who took the story pretty darn seriously.

People take wild claims (that they have no belief in whatsoever) seriously all the time - such groups can cause a lot of trouble.

They had, as well, absolutely no evidence that the story was not true–no body to present, thousands of people being cured etc. . .

And absolutely none that it was true. Do you have any evidence that the cult members who killed themselves a few years ago so their souls could be picked up by a UFO did not accomplish this? Does anyone believe that they were successful?

and Gamaliel himself acknowledged that ‘if this movement is of God–and therefore by extension truth’–it will continue, and if you try to hinder it, you are in danger of going against the will of God.’

Once again there is that big word “IF” and no mention of belief.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Sigh. No, VM is not agreeing with the OP. VM was inserting a provocative rejoinder to spice up the discussion. For the record, VM does not actually agree with the OP, nor with the proposition that VM put forth. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

OK. I’m over it.

 

[jmcrae]

Patg;

Those who saw Christ risen from the dead for themselves became Christians - understandably.

If you saw Christ risen from the dead, would you not convert, too? Or would you say to yourself, “Wait a minute. The credibility of this miracle will be harmed if I actually convert, since all of the testimony of this miracle is from Christians, so I’ll remain an atheist, but I’ll make a note in my diary that I saw Christ risen from the dead.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Patg;

Those who saw Christ risen from the dead for themselves became Christians - understandably.

If you saw Christ risen from the dead, would you not convert, too? Or would you say to yourself, “Wait a minute. The credibility of this miracle will be harmed if I actually convert, since all of the testimony of this miracle is from Christians, so I’ll remain an atheist, but I’ll make a note in my diary that I saw Christ risen from the dead.”

Notwithstanding that Patg would be one of those whose testimony is on the miracle of Resurrection.

 

[Nick]

And absolutely none that it was true. Do you have any evidence that the cult members who killed themselves a few years ago so their souls could be picked up by a UFO did not accomplish this? Does anyone believe that they were successful?

We have tons of evidence that the Ressurection was an actual historical event. We have a plethora of eye witnesses. Unless you can prove that each and every witness to the Ressurection was either lying, mistaken, or insane, then the reasonable thing to do would be to accept their testimony. There are no eye witness testimonies to prove the validity of the claims of various cults in recent years, and it can probably also be shown with relative ease that these people had mental illnesses and/or some profound character flaws. There is no evidence of any of these flaws or illnesses existing in any of the witnesses to the Ressurection.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

There are no eye witness testimonies to prove the validity of the claims of various cults in recent years, and it can probably also be shown with relative ease that these people had mental illnesses and/or some profound character flaws. There is no evidence of any of these flaws or illnesses existing in any of the witnesses to the Ressurection.

Thanks Nick.

Which leads me to the obvious, patg. That, notwithstanding that I referenced Habermas and gave a link, you (patg) have not addressed a major insight which sheds light on the question you yourself have raised. Please address that major insight.

Moreover, you claim that the Gospel writers are the only historical witnesses and that, because they were Christians, they were biassed.

As for historical witnesses:

Tacitus was not Christian.
Suetonius was not Christian.
Pliny the Younger was not Christian.
Josephus was not Christian.

Certainly they had their biasses but not in favour of the historicity of Christ.

And as for the historical Christian witnesses:

The point is that they were not always Christian. And they had their biasses but not in favour of the divinity of Christ.

The fact is that there were witnesses to the existence of Christ in history. And there were witnesses to the divinity of Christ in history. Just because you don’t call them witnesses, doesn’t mean that they were not witnesses.

Moreover, just because you choose not to address the points laid out in Habermas, does not mean that the historical witnesses to Christ were unreliable. Nor does it mean that every crazy story of the criminal accused are reliable.

Not only are your premises false, your argument is invalid.

 

[patg]

Patg;
Those who saw Christ risen from the dead for themselves became Christians - understandably.

Yes, those who claimed to have experienced a risen Christ did start Christianity.

If you saw Christ risen from the dead, would you not convert, too?

Sure, but i didn’t.

Or would you say to yourself, “Wait a minute. The credibility of this miracle will be harmed if I actually convert, since all of the testimony of this miracle is from Christians, so I’ll remain an atheist, but I’ll make a note in my diary that I saw Christ risen from the dead.”

That is not the point. We are required to believe a supernatural event based only on the contradictory testimony of a very few people who were already believers. There is no true historical evidence whatsoever. There are any number of religions whose founders performed miracles and whose followers declared them to be gods and who were willing to die for them. The bottom line is that belief in the resurrection requires faith and cannot be based on historical evidence.

 

[patg]

We have tons of evidence that the Ressurection was an actual historical event.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever. If there were, there would be a section in every history book describing this event - a person who rose from the dead. The contradictory testimony of a few cultish followers of someone is never accepted in the eyes of a historian as evidence of anything.

We have a plethora of eye witnesses.

No, we have a couple of ancient writings whose authors claim to be reporting the experiences of post-resurrection appearances. There are no witnesses to the resurrection itself. If you have the faith to believe that these reports are true, then they are true to you. But, you shouldn’t confuse rigorously determined and investigated historicity with what is in all aspects a faith belief.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

patg:

That is not the point. We are required to believe a supernatural event based only on the contradictory testimony of a very few people who were already believers.

Say it often and enough and it will be true, right? Your ‘explanation’ of your point of view has devolved into tautology.

We have demonstrated that the witnesses to the historicity of Jesus were not all believers.

You have not demonstrated that the witnesses to the historicity of Jesus were all believers.

Therefore you have conceded the point as to historical witnesses.

patg:

There is no true historical evidence whatsoever.

Tautology. Unsupported claim. Please offer support or concede the point.

patg:

here are any number of religions whose founders performed miracles and whose followers declared them to be gods and who were willing to die for them.

Red herring. Please respect the topic of the thread.

patg:

The bottom line is that belief in the resurrection requires faith and cannot be based on historical evidence.

It is a grammatical imprecision – if not a logical impossibility – to say that belief in the resurrection cannot be based on historical evidence.

Folks, this is an example of why the philosophy threads need to be separated from the apologetics threads.

There is a predictable methodology on many of the apologetics threads: strawman > tautology > false analogy > red herring > ad hominem > personal attack > pleading special case > swan song. Repeat on new thread.

The philosophy threads, on the other hand, have for the most part demonstrated friendship and respect, analytical rigour and impartiality, and logic.

Because there are so many philosophy threads appearing on the apologetics thread list, it was only a question of time before the non-philosophical methodology reared its impulcritudinous cranium. My :twocents:

Now just because this thread does not have the prefix ‘philosphy’ does not mean that it is not a philosophy thread. Its subject matter is philosophy. However it has devolved into a tautological rant and therefore I think it should be closed. Thoughts?