Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus' miracles are unsound claims

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?
Wylted
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:19:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Mexicans have a good work ethic. It surprises me very little to hear talk of one performing miracles.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:40:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Actually Envy, as you ar ethe one claiming they are unsupportable, you have the initial burden of proof.

Please convince me? Well, it just so happens that there is a website with that VERY NAME? It is aimed at atheists JUST like you who answer these questions, demanding that others provide for them rather than seek to answer their own questions and let evidence, rather the preconceptions drive their conclusion.

On the subject of miracles in general:

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

About the most fanastic? The Resurrection?

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

Perhaps atheists should offer up the pretense of humbleness in thes types of thread, and begin with the knowledge that really, having existed for two thousand years, you may not be the first person to ask, and have recieved answers, to questions about the miracles of Jesus.

We should perhaps BEGIN with referrence to it rather than laziliy sitting there demanding 'proof' - especially when the tactic is so common its coined a Apologetic web site that pokes fun of the tactic.

Please Convince Me!

I do love the approach in which we are certain of an answer, while providing no case for that certainty, and having predisproved anything you see by any means necessary. Seems a perfect measure of confirmation bias rather than an invitation to discussion, correct?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:51:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
C'mon man, where's the circular logic!?...cause the Bible says so lol.

Unfortunately we can't rewitness what Jesus did, we are left with slim historicity, straight philosophical and theoretical reasoning along with what the Bible offers us in the now. Our current connection is spiritual, not physical. I know that sounds cheap but it is absolutely true it's not an excuse.

So there you have it, the Bible is pretty much all an outsider can observe as far as the miracles go, sorry. Part of the reason is because the miracles that were done were performed in the midst of His followers as well as the common folk. The leaders of that time had a completely different view of Jesus than the believers and the laymen, they did not like Him, they hated Him and eventually killed Him, they would never have recorded anything of a miraculous nature concerning Christ.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:58:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A lot of theists try to make it out like all historical claims require the same amount of evidence. This is simply not the case, things that are highly unlikely need more evidence to support them. Reason being is that we are trying to get them to be likely outcomes, and they are further away from being likely.

Now a second point on the resurrection and miracles, before we can get to probable, we need theists to prove that a resurrrection and said miracles are possible. I have no reason to believe the miracles of Jesus are possible.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:09:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:40:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Actually Envy, as you ar ethe one claiming they are unsupportable, you have the initial burden of proof.

If the intrinsic probability of miracles is zero or near zero, then it doesn't follow that historical claims are best explained by them. Which is the conundrum.

There is no reason to assume the claims true in order to explain the facts as they stand today. If the intrinsic probability of miracles is exceptionally low, which it is, then prima facie the miracle claims in the bible are implausible.

That's the claim.

Please convince me? Well, it just so happens that there is a website with that VERY NAME? It is aimed at atheists JUST like you who answer these questions, demanding that others provide for them rather than seek to answer their own questions and let evidence, rather the preconceptions drive their conclusion.

On the subject of miracles in general:

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

About the most fanastic? The Resurrection?

Get this sh*t website out of my face and actually give me a researched answer and stop wasting my time with that crap.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

Perhaps atheists should offer up the pretense of humbleness in thes types of thread, and begin with the knowledge that really, having existed for two thousand years, you may not be the first person to ask, and have recieved answers, to questions about the miracles of Jesus.

We should perhaps BEGIN with referrence to it rather than laziliy sitting there demanding 'proof' - especially when the tactic is so common its coined a Apologetic web site that pokes fun of the tactic.

That's the same website the Gish Gallop fine tuning I researched piece of crap you showed me last month came from. If you have to resort to that crap then it's not worth mine or anyone else's time.

Please Convince Me!

I do love the approach in which we are certain of an answer, while providing no case for that certainty, and having predisproved anything you see by any means necessary. Seems a perfect measure of confirmation bias rather than an invitation to discussion, correct?

It's basic logic.

If something happens rarely, or never, then proposing that something as an explanation of anything requires extremely good reason of other known higher probability explanations exist.

Unfortunately you don't appear our have the intellect to actually argue on those grounds and instead need to resort to verbose emotional attacks to make something resembling a point.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:14:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:51:47 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
C'mon man, where's the circular logic!?...cause the Bible says so lol.

Unfortunately we can't rewitness what Jesus did, we are left with slim historicity, straight philosophical and theoretical reasoning along with what the Bible offers us in the now. Our current connection is spiritual, not physical. I know that sounds cheap but it is absolutely true it's not an excuse.

At least you are honest.

So there you have it, the Bible is pretty much all an outsider can observe as far as the miracles go, sorry. Part of the reason is because the miracles that were done were performed in the midst of His followers as well as the common folk. The leaders of that time had a completely different view of Jesus than the believers and the laymen, they did not like Him, they hated Him and eventually killed Him, they would never have recorded anything of a miraculous nature concerning Christ.

I don't actually have a problem with using the bible to reason towards miracles. It's like a black hole, you cannot directly see it, but you propose that black hole as an explanation for the facts that come from observation of things around it. It becomes a sound assumption to make if it grants excellent explanatory power, for the smallest number of assumptions, and can predictive and retrospective on future and past evidence.

So if there were historical things that occurred that are most easily and simply explained by a genuine miracle occurring, and poorly explained/another explained by a non-miracle occurring, then there would be good reason to think the assumption of a genuine miracle is a good one.

It would be the job of scholarship and the quality of the evidence available to establish that.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:26:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 9:09:53 AM, Envisage wrote:


If the intrinsic probability of miracles is zero or near zero, then it doesn't follow that historical claims are best explained by them. Which is the conundrum.

And yet they clearly exist:

http://listverse.com...

So, we already have evidence that your claim is based on a faulty assumption. Google provides over a million hits about documented miracles - and that rather glaringly challenges the concept.

Have you conducted any analysis on thes millions of documented miracles to se if there are any patterns ... right, they are near zero, so ... no.


There is no reason to assume the claims true in order to explain the facts as they stand today. If the intrinsic probability of miracles is exceptionally low, which it is, then prima facie the miracle claims in the bible are implausible.

If only we were relying on prima facie evidence that could not be so easily challenged and refuted with evidence.

After all, it seem impossible to fall 4,000 feet out of a fast moving airplane and survive.

http://www.bbc.com...

Yet it happened.

That's the claim.

And already refuted BEFORE you ever asked the question in ... please convince me. Do you believe in anomolies? Welcome to belief in miracles!

Get this sh*t website out of my face and actually give me a researched answer and stop wasting my time with that crap.

ROFL!!!! Yes, do not give me EXACTLY what I asked for! Noted.

There is MY prima facie evidence about the strength of this claim.


That's the same website the Gish Gallop fine tuning I researched piece of crap you showed me last month came from. If you have to resort to that crap then it's not worth mine or anyone else's time.

Right, you ask for something, get it, and then dismiss because a Christian wrote it? Without EVER establishing a single relevant fact to disagree on.

The claim that you are simply engaging in confirmation biases ... well, prima facie ain't it?


It's basic logic.

Yes, which is why we realize the reasons you are not reading EXACTLY what you demand, are fallacious.

Because of logic.


Unfortunately you don't appear our have the intellect to actually argue on those grounds and instead need to resort to verbose emotional attacks to make something resembling a point.

And another atheist is reduced to craven and stupid insults. You do realize that you are the one hurling insults? Your bunched panties that prevenst you from depersnalizing criticism of atheism from yourself?

Its because you atheism is emotional not logical.

As stated in the beginning, even the pretense of a rational disagreement is impossible.

It isn't logic or evidence driving atheism - its simple meanness and arrogance.

Prima facie all over the place.

Why indeed would any idiot ask a question DEMANDING something and then utterly refuse to read EXACTLY what he asks for? Because he's an atheist and already convinced he's right without evidence. A problem of pride - made worse by an internet that does not allow adults to slap children upside the head when they think getting rude equates to being right or tough.

I assure you envy, you are nothing special. Remember that.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:40:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 9:26:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:09:53 AM, Envisage wrote:


If the intrinsic probability of miracles is zero or near zero, then it doesn't follow that historical claims are best explained by them. Which is the conundrum.

And yet they clearly exist:

http://listverse.com...

Tell me, did you use google for all your citations in your thesis? Or did you use YouTube too? Did they laugh at you at your thesis defence because you had crap sources?

I bet they did.

Actually give me an academic source please, one that has been actually researched, lest it just paste my own retarded sources like this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com...

So, we already have evidence that your claim is based on a faulty assumption. Google provides over a million hits about documented miracles - and that rather glaringly challenges the concept.

Ah yes, good old google, always providing reliable information. The same website that has confirmed alien abductions and leprechaun sightings.

You need to do better than that Mr. PhD

What a joke.

Have you conducted any analysis on thes millions of documented miracles to se if there are any patterns ... right, they are near zero, so ... no.

I don't have to, your demonstration that you cannot provide a researched response is black and white evidence that no such evidence exists.

That added to the large number of debunked claims and zero confirmed claims gives good grounds for assuming this to be a sound input.


There is no reason to assume the claims true in order to explain the facts as they stand today. If the intrinsic probability of miracles is exceptionally low, which it is, then prima facie the miracle claims in the bible are implausible.

If only we were relying on prima facie evidence that could not be so easily challenged and refuted with evidence.

After all, it seem impossible to fall 4,000 feet out of a fast moving airplane and survive.

http://www.bbc.com...

Yet it happened.

And that is a miracle how?

Every lottery winner is a miracle? Is that what you are telling me?

Or every uranium atom decay? I mean come on, if left to chance that atom is only going to decay half the time in 4.5 billion years.

Confirmation bias at it's finest.

That's the claim.

And already refuted BEFORE you ever asked the question in ... please convince me. Do you believe in anomolies? Welcome to belief in miracles!



Get this sh*t website out of my face and actually give me a researched answer and stop wasting my time with that crap.

ROFL!!!! Yes, do not give me EXACTLY what I asked for! Noted.

I have already seen the crab that website holds, and it's not at all academic, if that's the best you got then I don't believe I can take you seriously.

There is MY prima facie evidence about the strength of this claim.



That's the same website the Gish Gallop fine tuning I researched piece of crap you showed me last month came from. If you have to resort to that crap then it's not worth mine or anyone else's time.

Right, you ask for something, get it, and then dismiss because a Christian wrote it? Without EVER establishing a single relevant fact to disagree on.

Nothing to do with their religious orientation, they just don't have a clue,just like you,

The claim that you are simply engaging in confirmation biases ... well, prima facie ain't it?


It's basic logic.

Yes, which is why we realize the reasons you are not reading EXACTLY what you demand, are fallacious.

Because of logic.



Unfortunately you don't appear our have the intellect to actually argue on those grounds and instead need to resort to verbose emotional attacks to make something resembling a point.

And another atheist is reduced to craven and stupid insults. You do realize that you are the one hurling insults? Your bunched panties that prevenst you from depersnalizing criticism of atheism from yourself?

Its because you atheism is emotional not logical.

As stated in the beginning, even the pretense of a rational disagreement is impossible.

It isn't logic or evidence driving atheism - its simple meanness and arrogance.

Prima facie all over the place.

Why indeed would any idiot ask a question DEMANDING something and then utterly refuse to read EXACTLY what he asks for? Because he's an atheist and already convinced he's right without evidence. A problem of pride - made worse by an internet that does not allow adults to slap children upside the head when they think getting rude equates to being right or tough.

I assure you envy, you are nothing special. Remember that.

If I am nothing special then you are clinically brain dead.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 10:01:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to
life, I immediately ask myself whether it is more probable
that "this person either deceives or has been deceived or that
"what he reports really has happened. I weigh one miracle
against the other, and according to the superiority which
I discover I pronounce my decision and always reject the
greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be
more miraculous than the event that he relates, then he can
claim to command my belief or opinion, but not otherwise." Hume- Miracles

"Denying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is among the rhetoric now resorted to by those who genuinely expect superman to fly down from outer space and kill me. So I have to say something about this first. If I tell you I own a car, I usually won't have to present very much evidence to prove it because you've already observed mountains of evidence that people like me own cars. But if I say I own a nuclear missile, you have just as much evidence that "people like him own nuclear missiles" is not true. So I would need much more evidence to prove I owned one, to make up for all the evidence I don't have from any supporting generalization. Just think to yourself what it would take for me to convince you I owned a nuclear missile, and you'll see what I mean. In contrast, the odds of winning a lottery are very low, so you might think it would be an extraordinary claim for me to assert "I won a lottery." But lotteries are routinely won. We've observed countless lotteries being won and have tons of evidence that people win lotteries. Therefore, the general claim "people like him win lotteries" is already confirmed, and so I wouldn't need very much evidence to convince you that I won. So "I won a lottery" is not an extraordinary claim. But "I own a nuclear missile" clearly is.
Now suppose I told you "I own an interstellar spacecraft." That would be an even more extraordinary claim-because there is no generalization supporting it at all. Not only do you have tons of very good evidence that "people like him own interstellar spacecraft" is not true, you also have no evidence this has ever been true for anyone-unlike nuclear missiles, which you know at least exist. Therefore, the burden of evidence I would have to bear here is truly enormous. Just think of what it would take for you to believe I really did have an interstellar spacecraft, and again you'll see what I mean.
Once you realize the common sense of this, it's obvious that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To deny that's true is simply irrational" Christian Delusion- Richard Carrier

This is something theists dont seem to get. The miracle is a very low probability and the theists themselves must concede this as J.L Mackie puts it in his essay on Hume and Miracles: "It is therefore not enough for the defender of a miracle to cast doubt (as he well might) on the certainty of our knowledge of the law of nature that seems to have been violated. For he must himself say that this is a law of nature: otherwise the reported event will not be miraculous. That is, he must in effort concede to Hume
that the antecedent improbability of this event is as high as it could be, hence that, apart from the testimony, we have the strongest possible grounds for believing that the alleged event did not occur. This event must, by the miracle advocate's own admission, be contrary to a genuine, not merely a supposed, law of nature, and therefore maximally improbable. It is this maximal improbability that the weight of the testimony would have to overcome." MIracles and Testimony pg 5.

With that said we have sufficient reason in every case to believe that miracles did not happen. I also propose that the theist while attempting to sneak in the resurrection has skipped a step, they have went right to most probable, by ignoring the facts that show its actually impossible, so ignoring the step of getting us to a possible solution to the data.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 10:49:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Either you believe or trust what was documented in the bible, or you don"t. Even in the context of Jesus Christ He is a trusted witness of His Father in Heaven. Therefore belief is required to receive fulfillment of the expectations accordingly.

Mankind must believe, believe something is true about every question in his head, or he wouldn"t ask in the first place. He must believe in what he is doing in order for him to trust what he is doing is the way to success according to his expectations therein. Belief and trust are required in the human life, it"s where he places his trust that matters. Whether he receives the expectation or not would have to be because what he has placed his trust in, is the truth or not.

What I don"t understand why the hostility toward something that isn"t keeping you from your desired fulfillment. If it"s just that you don"t have to believe as the bible believer does then why do you act as though it is unjust for the believer to believe the bible and not what you believe?

Anyways, the wisdom of why didn"t Jesus write down anything is simple, it is what others saw, heard, and experienced in the presence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that is documented. To what benefit would it be to them to tell something that wouldn"t be true, and be persecuted for it? People lie to gain and or avoid an undesired result, in most cases.
annanicole
Posts: 20,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:04:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Since the miracles will not be re-created just satisfy skeptics down through the ages, one would have to look toward fulfilled Bible prophesy. I would direct one to Matt 24 and the prophesy concerning the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem.

I have said many times on here - and will say it again - that the only "explanation" I've ever seen an atheist offer is a borderline tarded attempt to re-date the composition of the book of Matthew, i. e. make it to where the "prophesy" was recorded after the event. That's about all they can do.

If anyone has a real explanation concerning how the events surrounding the siege and fall could have been prophesied with such accuracy, then I truly would love to hear it. I'd nearly pay for it, actually. If someone designs to re-date the New Testament - and bases his entire faith upon his unsupported guesses - then there's not much that can be done. However, if someone can provide a more logical explanation, then that's fine by me.
Fatihah
Posts: 8,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:18:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Response: They are substantiated the same way the scientific facts you claim are true are substantiated. The proof is authentic testimony. The same way you blindly believe evolution is true, despite never seeing anything evolve into another species.

And this is the part where, like all deluded atheists and agnostics, that you ignore the hypocrisy in your own logic. For you claim it did occur, then provide a link as proof, instead of actual observable and testable evidence. Therefore, the claims that Jesus performed a miracle is also true, as theists can also provide a link of eyewitnesses testifying it occurred. So if evolution is true based on such evidence, then your own logic shows the miracles of Jesus are true, since is based on the same evidence. Authentic testimony. Debunked.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:35:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:18:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Response: They are substantiated the same way the scientific facts you claim are true are substantiated. The proof is authentic testimony.

Just begs the question, is it authentic? And even if it is authentic, does it testify to what really happened, and not what they think happened. There is no self-correction mechanism here, which is the key difference between studies on evolution and miracles.

The same way you blindly believe evolution is true, despite never seeing anything evolve into another species.

And this is the part where, like all deluded atheists and agnostics, that you ignore the hypocrisy in your own logic. For you claim it did occur, then provide a link as proof, instead of actual observable and testable evidence. Therefore, the claims that Jesus performed a miracle is also true, as theists can also provide a link of eyewitnesses testifying it occurred.

Eyewitnesses also testify to alien abductions, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster to name just a few. Eyewitness testimony is pretty much the lowest form of evidence when assessing claims objectively.

So if evolution is true based on such evidence, then your own logic shows the miracles of Jesus are true, since is based on the same evidence. Authentic testimony. Debunked.

False equivocation.
Fatihah
Posts: 8,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:52:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:35:14 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/26/2014 11:18:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Response: They are substantiated the same way the scientific facts you claim are true are substantiated. The proof is authentic testimony.

Just begs the question, is it authentic? And even if it is authentic, does it testify to what really happened, and not what they think happened. There is no self-correction mechanism here, which is the key difference between studies on evolution and miracles.

The same way you blindly believe evolution is true, despite never seeing anything evolve into another species.

And this is the part where, like all deluded atheists and agnostics, that you ignore the hypocrisy in your own logic. For you claim it did occur, then provide a link as proof, instead of actual observable and testable evidence. Therefore, the claims that Jesus performed a miracle is also true, as theists can also provide a link of eyewitnesses testifying it occurred.

Eyewitnesses also testify to alien abductions, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster to name just a few. Eyewitness testimony is pretty much the lowest form of evidence when assessing claims objectively.

So if evolution is true based on such evidence, then your own logic shows the miracles of Jesus are true, since is based on the same evidence. Authentic testimony. Debunked.

False equivocation.

Response: Exactly. It does beg the question as to if it is authentic. Making my point. For when it comes to evolution, you rely on the testimony of alleged scientists, but how do you know it is authentic? You say it's peer-reviewed. Begging the question again, because how do you know it is peer-reviewed? Exactly. You don't. Yet you rely on it. And if eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence, and that is exactly what you have for evolution, then that makes evolution unsubstantiated. Debunked by your own logic.

As such, you still have no logical basis to deny the testimony that Jesus performed miracles.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:56:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.


Just a heads up, Jesus didn't actually raise the dead who apparently rose after the sky went dark during his death, that was a sign of God fulfilling a prophecy, it would have happened regardless of Jesus' s state at that time.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:59:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:52:25 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/26/2014 11:35:14 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/26/2014 11:18:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Response: They are substantiated the same way the scientific facts you claim are true are substantiated. The proof is authentic testimony.

Just begs the question, is it authentic? And even if it is authentic, does it testify to what really happened, and not what they think happened. There is no self-correction mechanism here, which is the key difference between studies on evolution and miracles.

The same way you blindly believe evolution is true, despite never seeing anything evolve into another species.

And this is the part where, like all deluded atheists and agnostics, that you ignore the hypocrisy in your own logic. For you claim it did occur, then provide a link as proof, instead of actual observable and testable evidence. Therefore, the claims that Jesus performed a miracle is also true, as theists can also provide a link of eyewitnesses testifying it occurred.

Eyewitnesses also testify to alien abductions, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster to name just a few. Eyewitness testimony is pretty much the lowest form of evidence when assessing claims objectively.

So if evolution is true based on such evidence, then your own logic shows the miracles of Jesus are true, since is based on the same evidence. Authentic testimony. Debunked.

False equivocation.

Response: Exactly. It does beg the question as to if it is authentic. Making my point. For when it comes to evolution, you rely on the testimony of alleged scientists, but how do you know it is authentic? You say it's peer-reviewed. Begging the question again, because how do you know it is peer-reviewed? Exactly. You don't. Yet you rely on it. And if eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence, and that is exactly what you have for evolution, then that makes evolution unsubstantiated. Debunked by your own logic.

The difference is it is a virtuous circle, there is clear reason to accept that such claims are filtered rather than bolstered. Indeed most scientific journals you can read work to falsify an existing proposition, and so on.

As such, you still have no logical basis to deny the testimony that Jesus performed miracles.

Even if the injunctions to scientific criteria did fall into a viscious circle, then at best you are committing a tu torque fallacy. Where you attack another position instead of supporting your own.

The best you can say is all evidence is unreliable.
Fatihah
Posts: 8,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:03:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:59:13 AM, Envisage wrote:


The difference is it is a virtuous circle, there is clear reason to accept that such claims are filtered rather than bolstered. Indeed most scientific journals you can read work to falsify an existing proposition, and so on.


Response: And your proof of such a statement is because someone said so. Making my point again that you rely on testimony.

As such, you still have no logical basis to deny the testimony that Jesus performed miracles.

Even if the injunctions to scientific criteria did fall into a viscious circle, then at best you are committing a tu torque fallacy. Where you attack another position instead of supporting your own.

The best you can say is all evidence is unreliable.

Response: Yet my position is not to blindly claim something is true based on testimony, without logical proof that the authors are truthful. Yours is. So at best, you can say that you have no evidence for any truth, thus only supporting what interest you. Not because it is factual.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:56:33 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.


Just a heads up, Jesus didn't actually raise the dead who apparently rose after the sky went dark during his death, that was a sign of God fulfilling a prophecy, it would have happened regardless of Jesus' s state at that time.

I might have been wrong there, but the claim is still made. You can make a simple argument against the inerrancy if the bible:

P1) If the bible is inerrant, then thousands if zombies were walking the city streets upon the resurrection of Jesus
P2) If thousand of zombies were walking the streets then multiple independent corroborating contemporary accounts of the event would have been recorded
P3) Multiple independent contemporary accounts were not recorded
C) The bible is not inerrant

P2 is easily defended since it is such a massive claim, and would have certainly been witnessed by many thousands, either by literate scholars or by witnesses that passed through information to said scholars.

If this was supposed to be a message from God then it makes sense he would have had it preserved in a compelling way, in fact this was probably his best opportunity to do so. He did not.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 12:03:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/26/2014 11:59:13 AM, Envisage wrote:


The difference is it is a virtuous circle, there is clear reason to accept that such claims are filtered rather than bolstered. Indeed most scientific journals you can read work to falsify an existing proposition, and so on.


Response: And your proof of such a statement is because someone said so. Making my point again that you rely on testimony.

I work in the field. Such a statement is made on first hand witness testimony, so speak for yourself.

As such, you still have no logical basis to deny the testimony that Jesus performed miracles.

Even if the injunctions to scientific criteria did fall into a viscious circle, then at best you are committing a tu torque fallacy. Where you attack another position instead of supporting your own.

The best you can say is all evidence is unreliable.

Response: Yet my position is not to blindly claim something is true based on testimony, without logical proof that the authors are truthful. Yours is.

Please provide reason why your position is any better than the one of mine that you allegedly depict.

So at best, you can say that you have no evidence for any truth, thus only supporting what interest you. Not because it is factual.

I disagree with this obviously, but since you are so ignorant I will let you speak for yourself. Tell me how your position is suddenly sound.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:10:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Superman also performed many miracles. All you have to do is read comic books about him for proof that he performed them.
Fatihah
Posts: 8,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:27:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 12:07:34 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/26/2014 12:03:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/26/2014 11:59:13 AM, Envisage wrote:


The difference is it is a virtuous circle, there is clear reason to accept that such claims are filtered rather than bolstered. Indeed most scientific journals you can read work to falsify an existing proposition, and so on.


Response: And your proof of such a statement is because someone said so. Making my point again that you rely on testimony.

I work in the field. Such a statement is made on first hand witness testimony, so speak for yourself.

Response: Then you should be able to provide such evidence here so we ourselves can see from a firsthand account. The fact that you fail to do so shows the falsehood in your own testimony.

As such, you still have no logical basis to deny the testimony that Jesus performed miracles.

Even if the injunctions to scientific criteria did fall into a viscious circle, then at best you are committing a tu torque fallacy. Where you attack another position instead of supporting your own.

The best you can say is all evidence is unreliable.

Response: Yet my position is not to blindly claim something is true based on testimony, without logical proof that the authors are truthful. Yours is.

Please provide reason why your position is any better than the one of mine that you allegedly depict.


Response: The evidence is proven by observable and testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence. So when we look at the Qur'an, we can apply:

1. the Qur'an challenge to learn firsthand that it is humanly impossible to create a chapter like the Qur'an, proving it is of divine origin.

2. Observe that there is nothing in the Qur'an that is false, nor is indecent, immoral, or unjust, and is a guidance to righteousness. Therefore,,

3. The Divine author of the Qur'an must be a truth teller, because these are the attributes of one who speaks truthfully. And since the author is proven to be truthful, then the claims that Jesus performed miracles are true.

Now for me to be wrong you would have to show:

1. An answer to the Qur'an challenge and produce a chapter like the Qur'an as proof that it is humanly possible.

2. Prove one false claim in the Qur'an.

3. Show anything in the Qur'an that is immoral or indecent or unjust.

Very simple. When you fail to do so, then your own hands is proof the Qur'an is true. Therefore, the claims of Jesus miracles are true.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:38:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:59:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
The best you can say is all evidence is unreliable.

But what of your own experience, or revelation which is the cause of knowing, what if you experienced what believers have experienced? Is your witness valid? Is what you say you have experience at all, for that matter, valid?

A house is a house whether you want to believe it or not, the dishonest believe only what they want to believe, and see only what they want to see, and the honest tell you what they saw whether they wanted to or not. To compare I saw a man walk that could not walk until Jesus healed him isn"t the same as alien abductions. Which could be seen as a self witness of self, rather than "I saw so and so abducted", haven"t heard to many of those, if any.

Basically the bible as a whole is a collection of individuals and a nation"s experiences with the same God. Or Spirit and Power if you will, that states and shows to them that it is the Creator and Judge the Almighty they are dealing with. Which has been tracked by documentation, verbal or written for over 5000 yr"s. this God of Israel has a relationship directly with His People. This isn"t a God of a far distance from earth or mankind, like many theists seem to think.

In the arena of proof, in the cases of the Lord God of Israel, God proves He is with a man, not the other way around.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 1:16:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:04:17 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Since the miracles will not be re-created just satisfy skeptics down through the ages, one would have to look toward fulfilled Bible prophesy. I would direct one to Matt 24 and the prophesy concerning the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem.

I have said many times on here - and will say it again - that the only "explanation" I've ever seen an atheist offer is a borderline tarded attempt to re-date the composition of the book of Matthew, i. e. make it to where the "prophesy" was recorded after the event. That's about all they can do.

If anyone has a real explanation concerning how the events surrounding the siege and fall could have been prophesied with such accuracy, then I truly would love to hear it. I'd nearly pay for it, actually. If someone designs to re-date the New Testament - and bases his entire faith upon his unsupported guesses - then there's not much that can be done. However, if someone can provide a more logical explanation, then that's fine by me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the scholarly consensus of the Date of Matthew is after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...
http://catholic-resources.org...

So, before you can establish prophecy as miracle, you would first need to establish prophecy.

Also, as far as I am concerned the NT is not the inspired word of the Christian god. 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the OT, as some books of the NT did not exist (and the NT canon had not even been determined) when this verse was put to papyrus. So any prophecies which were not uttered and fulfilled in the OT are very debatable.
If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people. - Edlvsjd

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 1:28:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 9:40:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:26:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:09:53 AM, Envisage wrote:


If the intrinsic probability of miracles is zero or near zero, then it doesn't follow that historical claims are best explained by them. Which is the conundrum.

And yet they clearly exist:

http://listverse.com...

Tell me, did you use google for all your citations in your thesis? Or did you use YouTube too? Did they laugh at you at your thesis defence because you had crap sources?

I bet they did.

Actually give me an academic source please, one that has been actually researched, lest it just paste my own retarded sources like this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com...

So, we already have evidence that your claim is based on a faulty assumption. Google provides over a million hits about documented miracles - and that rather glaringly challenges the concept.

Ah yes, good old google, always providing reliable information. The same website that has confirmed alien abductions and leprechaun sightings.

You need to do better than that Mr. PhD

What a joke.

Have you conducted any analysis on thes millions of documented miracles to se if there are any patterns ... right, they are near zero, so ... no.

I don't have to, your demonstration that you cannot provide a researched response is black and white evidence that no such evidence exists.

That added to the large number of debunked claims and zero confirmed claims gives good grounds for assuming this to be a sound input.


There is no reason to assume the claims true in order to explain the facts as they stand today. If the intrinsic probability of miracles is exceptionally low, which it is, then prima facie the miracle claims in the bible are implausible.

If only we were relying on prima facie evidence that could not be so easily challenged and refuted with evidence.

After all, it seem impossible to fall 4,000 feet out of a fast moving airplane and survive.

http://www.bbc.com...

Yet it happened.

And that is a miracle how?

Every lottery winner is a miracle? Is that what you are telling me?

Or every uranium atom decay? I mean come on, if left to chance that atom is only going to decay half the time in 4.5 billion years.

Confirmation bias at it's finest.

That's the claim.

And already refuted BEFORE you ever asked the question in ... please convince me. Do you believe in anomolies? Welcome to belief in miracles!



Get this sh*t website out of my face and actually give me a researched answer and stop wasting my time with that crap.

ROFL!!!! Yes, do not give me EXACTLY what I asked for! Noted.

I have already seen the crab that website holds, and it's not at all academic, if that's the best you got then I don't believe I can take you seriously.

There is MY prima facie evidence about the strength of this claim.



That's the same website the Gish Gallop fine tuning I researched piece of crap you showed me last month came from. If you have to resort to that crap then it's not worth mine or anyone else's time.

Right, you ask for something, get it, and then dismiss because a Christian wrote it? Without EVER establishing a single relevant fact to disagree on.

Nothing to do with their religious orientation, they just don't have a clue,just like you,

The claim that you are simply engaging in confirmation biases ... well, prima facie ain't it?


It's basic logic.

Yes, which is why we realize the reasons you are not reading EXACTLY what you demand, are fallacious.

Because of logic.



Unfortunately you don't appear our have the intellect to actually argue on those grounds and instead need to resort to verbose emotional attacks to make something resembling a point.

And another atheist is reduced to craven and stupid insults. You do realize that you are the one hurling insults? Your bunched panties that prevenst you from depersnalizing criticism of atheism from yourself?

Its because you atheism is emotional not logical.

As stated in the beginning, even the pretense of a rational disagreement is impossible.

It isn't logic or evidence driving atheism - its simple meanness and arrogance.

Prima facie all over the place.

Why indeed would any idiot ask a question DEMANDING something and then utterly refuse to read EXACTLY what he asks for? Because he's an atheist and already convinced he's right without evidence. A problem of pride - made worse by an internet that does not allow adults to slap children upside the head when they think getting rude equates to being right or tough.

I assure you envy, you are nothing special. Remember that.

If I am nothing special then you are clinically brain dead.

Oh look, the guy with the BOP has no citations, and now accusing people of using google to provide links (notably NOT being done by him), as if .. on an internet debate forum, we should provide citation by performing an archeological dig and bringing him stone tablets to personally view, in his magical greek translating ability will allow him to translate correctly ... but in a manner that disagrees with very one else who translates it ... to tell you that you are wrong.

No case.

No evidence.

And treating people in a way he runs off to mods to scream about when he is treated that way.

Just another vicious atheist with a mean streak and the craven ability to insult people rather than use his brain. But I am sure at the ripe old age of 26 he already knows everything ... so much so he is reduced to insults rather than argumentation and attempting to get people banned through overt hypocrisy.

Try controlling your atheist anger long enough to make a case before you accuse others of having character flaws. Particularly after making silly excuses to avoid exactly what you demand.

Atheists.

Why they even bother coming into a religion forum is beyond comprehension.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 1:30:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

So because something has a rare possibility it can not be a explanation for an event. Yeah sounds legit.

So all these "supernatural" events explained with ball lightning, is the explanation is bull sh!t. Ball lightning is so rare there is no objective natural observation of it and only recently been made it a laboratory.

The fact that something is possible, means that at some point in time and history it will happen. Which means if all other common explanations are insufficient than the rare possibility now becomes the only acceptable explanation.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 1:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

Well, I guess the evidence of the Miracles of Jesus would be the Bible and deutero-canonical gospels? First, it is not possible to prove who wrote them, and because of this, it is not possible to establish the character of the eye-witness or if the writer was an eyewitness. We might as well claim Beowulf really killed Grendel and the unknown writer was actually an eyewitness. How Miraculous!!

I have not seen WLC's use of Bayes. I'll check it out.
If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people. - Edlvsjd

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 2:11:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 1:30:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

So because something has a rare possibility it can not be a explanation for an event. Yeah sounds legit.

So all these "supernatural" events explained with ball lightning, is the explanation is bull sh!t. Ball lightning is so rare there is no objective natural observation of it and only recently been made it a laboratory.

The fact that something is possible, means that at some point in time and history it will happen. Which means if all other common explanations are insufficient than the rare possibility now becomes the only acceptable explanation.

Agreed.

But then we haven't even established that miracles are even a small possibility.

And even assuming miracles are a (very) small possibility, it follows that they are automatically the lowest in the pecking order of explanations for the facts regarding the NT.

The only way they would be put higher is if they provide explanatory power that other explanations do not provide, and if they form a small possibility of their own.

Miracles fail on each and every one of these accounts.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 2:15:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 1:28:45 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:40:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:26:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:09:53 AM, Envisage wrote:


If the intrinsic probability of miracles is zero or near zero, then it doesn't follow that historical claims are best explained by them. Which is the conundrum.

And yet they clearly exist:

http://listverse.com...

Tell me, did you use google for all your citations in your thesis? Or did you use YouTube too? Did they laugh at you at your thesis defence because you had crap sources?

I bet they did.

Actually give me an academic source please, one that has been actually researched, lest it just paste my own retarded sources like this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com...

So, we already have evidence that your claim is based on a faulty assumption. Google provides over a million hits about documented miracles - and that rather glaringly challenges the concept.

Ah yes, good old google, always providing reliable information. The same website that has confirmed alien abductions and leprechaun sightings.

You need to do better than that Mr. PhD

What a joke.

Have you conducted any analysis on thes millions of documented miracles to se if there are any patterns ... right, they are near zero, so ... no.

I don't have to, your demonstration that you cannot provide a researched response is black and white evidence that no such evidence exists.

That added to the large number of debunked claims and zero confirmed claims gives good grounds for assuming this to be a sound input.


There is no reason to assume the claims true in order to explain the facts as they stand today. If the intrinsic probability of miracles is exceptionally low, which it is, then prima facie the miracle claims in the bible are implausible.

If only we were relying on prima facie evidence that could not be so easily challenged and refuted with evidence.

After all, it seem impossible to fall 4,000 feet out of a fast moving airplane and survive.

http://www.bbc.com...

Yet it happened.

And that is a miracle how?

Every lottery winner is a miracle? Is that what you are telling me?

Or every uranium atom decay? I mean come on, if left to chance that atom is only going to decay half the time in 4.5 billion years.

Confirmation bias at it's finest.

That's the claim.

And already refuted BEFORE you ever asked the question in ... please convince me. Do you believe in anomolies? Welcome to belief in miracles!



Get this sh*t website out of my face and actually give me a researched answer and stop wasting my time with that crap.

ROFL!!!! Yes, do not give me EXACTLY what I asked for! Noted.

I have already seen the crab that website holds, and it's not at all academic, if that's the best you got then I don't believe I can take you seriously.

There is MY prima facie evidence about the strength of this claim.



That's the same website the Gish Gallop fine tuning I researched piece of crap you showed me last month came from. If you have to resort to that crap then it's not worth mine or anyone else's time.

Right, you ask for something, get it, and then dismiss because a Christian wrote it? Without EVER establishing a single relevant fact to disagree on.

Nothing to do with their religious orientation, they just don't have a clue,just like you,

The claim that you are simply engaging in confirmation biases ... well, prima facie ain't it?


It's basic logic.

Yes, which is why we realize the reasons you are not reading EXACTLY what you demand, are fallacious.

Because of logic.



Unfortunately you don't appear our have the intellect to actually argue on those grounds and instead need to resort to verbose emotional attacks to make something resembling a point.

And another atheist is reduced to craven and stupid insults. You do realize that you are the one hurling insults? Your bunched panties that prevenst you from depersnalizing criticism of atheism from yourself?

Its because you atheism is emotional not logical.

As stated in the beginning, even the pretense of a rational disagreement is impossible.

It isn't logic or evidence driving atheism - its simple meanness and arrogance.

Prima facie all over the place.

Why indeed would any idiot ask a question DEMANDING something and then utterly refuse to read EXACTLY what he asks for? Because he's an atheist and already convinced he's right without evidence. A problem of pride - made worse by an internet that does not allow adults to slap children upside the head when they think getting rude equates to being right or tough.

I assure you envy, you are nothing special. Remember that.

If I am nothing special then you are clinically brain dead.

Oh look, the guy with the BOP has no citations, and now accusing people of using google to provide links (notably NOT being done by him), as if .. on an internet debate forum, we should provide citation by performing an archeological dig and bringing him stone tablets to personally view, in his magical greek translating ability will allow him to translate correctly ... but in a manner that disagrees with very one else who translates it ... to tell you that you are wrong.

I fulfilled my BoP, my position is a purely logical one. If Horne intrinsic probability of events are low, then they are all things equal automatically not the best explanation for an event.

There are factors that would change that but the NT scholarship has not fulfilled that burden. Therefore the claims are unsound.

No case.

No evidence.

Exactly, you have none.

And treating people in a way he runs off to mods to scream about when he is treated that way.

Just another vicious atheist with a mean streak and the craven ability to insult people rather than use his brain. But I am sure at the ripe old age of 26 he already knows everything ... so much so he is reduced to insults rather than argumentation and attempting to get people banned through overt hypocrisy.

Try controlling your atheist anger long enough to make a case before you accuse others of having character flaws. Particularly after making silly excuses to avoid exactly what you demand.

Atheists.

Why they even bother coming into a religion forum is beyond comprehension.

Given that you STILL have provided nothing of academic worth, whilst you claim to have some experience as a historian, leads me to conclude your entire case is a joke.

It's not my fault that my pointing that out hurts your little feelings Dr. Neutral.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 2:17:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:29:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
Enough with the 'did Jesus exist' discussion.

The more interesting discussion is did a man names Jesus perform the miracles claimed. Turning water into wine, feeding the thousands, rising from the dead, the rising of thousands of zombies, etc.

Please tell me how these claims are sustainable, and why they are the best explanation of the historical evidence/claims.

The only justification I have seen for this is WLC's woeful use of Bayes theorem, any better takers?

There are a number of good reasons to trust the Biblical accounts of Jesus' miracles.

1: If Jesus, for example, did not feed the 5000. How can you explain the rise of Christianity? Such an enormous claim, is easily refutable. Imagine you are living in one of these towns at the time, with perhaps 20'000 population, how would Christianity develop in such a town, if no-one ever heard of anyone corroborating these stories?

2: Study this source from Tacitus, Roman Historian, ~AD 110.

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. "

How did Jesus develop an immense multitude of followers? He was no warlord (like Muhammed), he held no power, like the various state religions, he was opposed by the Jews and the Romans, and yet, during his very short time preaching and healing and "doing miracles", he developed an "immense multitude", willing to die for his name. What convinced these people?

3: THALLUS (~ 52 A.D.)

Although his works exist only in fragments, Julius Africanus debates Thallus' explanation of the midday darkness which
occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural occurrence (a solar eclipse) but any astronomer can confirm a solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets.
Phlegon of Tralles, a 2nd century secular historian, also mentions the darkness and tries to dismiss it as a solar eclipse. He also states the
event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other
districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the
sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the
passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time... Phlegon
records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one
of which we speak." Chronography XVIII, 47

4: CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.) Author and opponent of Christianity.

"Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He
returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of
sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding
of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of
incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."

He does not deny Jesus, or his miracles, which he would surely have preferred to do, if they weren't already so well known.

5: FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.) First century Pharisee

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such
men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when
Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him.
For he appeared to them alive again the third day. As the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him. And the tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities XVIII, 3:2

And this is not to mention the unique Biblical sources, which are of-course completely valid testimonies themselves.