|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,466 Year: 3,723/9,624 Month: 594/974 Week: 207/276 Day: 47/34 Hour: 3/6 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It is true when used correctly. When evidence that should be present is not. The absence of any significant evidence for the Flood story in geology, archaeology and genetics is pretty good evidence that the Flood story is not literally true. To use an example where I clashed with Crashfrog: If the records of crucifixions under Pilate were preserved then the absence of a record for Jesus would be evidence that Jesus didn’t exist. However that is not the case. The fact that those records are completely missing is only evidence that they were lost. Since we shouldn’t expect to have an official record of Jesus’ crucifixion, the absence of the record isn’t evidence against Jesus existence in any way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Let’s consider Joseph Smith. We know that he was a con-artist, that his translations were inventions, that the Book of Mormon history is fiction. And there are more negatives there.
Yet, his success as a messenger can’t be denied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That depends on the miracle. A miraculous healing could be well-documented through medical records. If an organic condition - one that doesn’t have a record of sometimes reversing itself - were properly documented and if it were found to have been cured (regrowing an amputated limb is a good one) then we’d have evidence. The Randi Foundation cane up with some decent tests for claimed paranormal abilities. At a less ambitious level, if there were really good examples of Biblical prophecy (where we can confirm that the prediction was made before the event, where the prediction isn’t too vague, where the prediction came true without resorting to creative interpretations etc.) then that would be pretty good. Oddly people do seem to claim to have good examples but we never see any. I wonder why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I didn’t say that ALL organic conditions spontaneously reverse, just that if some do we shouldn’t count such cases as miracles. If we know something can happen anyway how can we call it a miracle ?
quote: They are close enough that the same considerations might apply.
quote: The predictions up to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (including most of his reign) do seem to have been made after the events - but then I did say that you needed to be able to show that the prophecies were made before the event, and you can’t. Metzger is going with the evidence. And all the prophecies of Daniel said to come later either failed or require creative interpretation.
quote: It’s difficult, perhaps impossible, but that really isn’t our fault. The evidence isn’t even as good as it could be. If God had merely stirred Philo of Alexandria to note one of Jesus’ miracles you would be noticeably better off. That would be nowhere good enough but it would be better. But you were the one claiming to have good evidence - if that isn’t even possible, that just makes your claim foolish as well as false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Some more thoughts.
It is indeed hard to see how the relatively small scale miracles attributed to Jesus could leave sufficient evidence to be proven today. They can’t be supported by archaeological evidence, leaving us with at best eyewitness accounts which are always going to be unsatisfactory simply because of ordinary human failings and the greater credulity if the times. This, however, does not demonstrate a flaw in the thinking of the skeptics. It does demonstrate that those sort of miracles can’t be good evidence to us today even if they did occur. Therefore the suggestion that God intended them to be evidence for us only asserts that a God made a foolish mistake. But it must also be said that the evidence for those miracles could be better than it is. We can’t confirm that any of the stories were written by eye-witnesses. None come from neutral, hostile or (best of all) skeptical sources. None of them were written close in time to the supposed events. Even for mundane events we would have to consider the Gospels unreliable. If God was trying to provide evidence to us he did a very poor job. Prophecy is better because it is much easier to have good evidence. But let’s note that the only prophecies Faith picked out were those of Daniel covering history from Nebuchadnezzar to Antiochus Epiphanes. Now, these would be good - especially those concerning Alexander - if we could confirm that those parts of Daniel were written earlier than the events. But we can’t. We don’t have any clear references to Daniel himself, despite his supposed prominence. The author seems to confuse Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar - which would be hard for any contemporary to do. We don’t find any reference to the book itself - and the book even indicates that part of it would only be revealed in the End Times. The prophecies concerning events after the supposed date of writing have other problems (and this is the main evidence for the date). It would hardly be impossible to have better evidence in any of these respects. Yet we don’t. So, in all, the problem is that the evidence is bad. And it could quite easily be better if there was a God who wanted it to be better. Blaming the skeptics is hardly a sensible or honest response to the problem. It would be better to blame those who falsely claim that there is good evidence - whether through negligence, bias or dishonesty. Whatever the cause, they do believers a dissservice in promoting falsehood and unrealistic claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Sane people realise that stories of miracles, decades after the event are not good evidence of miracles. Sane people realise that eyewitnesses can be mistaken or deceived. Sane people accept the fact that stories grow over time. Sane people recognise that the Gospel authors can’t be reliably identified as eyewitnesses. Sane people don’t insist that the Gospels were accepted as infallible from the start. But you don’t seem to like arguing with people who do accept those facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It’s the view that jar has been putting forward. The one that Faith can’t understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Given that your case relies on assuming that the Gospel writers were not subject to ordinary human weaknesses - and you won’t even consider the possibility that they weren’t witnesses, were credulous, were strongly biased and that their sources were also credulous and biased it seems rather obvious that you are misjudging the evidence. Of course, if you were not simply assuming those things you could make a case for them - which would be more to say. Obviously you have none which means that you are certainly misjudging the evidence.
quote: But you do have a strong tendency to believe quite ridiculous falsehoods just because you like them. So your belief in something is hardly proof it’s true. (I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be evidence of falsehood).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But I didn’t insult you. Pointing out the fact that you are not evaluating the evidence properly - and implicitly admit that you can’t defend the underlying assumptions - is not an insult. It’s just fact. Pointing out that you do believe ridiculous falsehoods isn’t an insult either - it’s another fact. If you don’t like either of those facts it’s up to you to change. And I don’t see how orthodox Christianity has any objection to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Which is obviously not good evidence and you have given no valid reason to think it is. And you don’t intended to even try to do that. So what’s the point ? Making assertions that you can’t back up is just a waste of everyone’s time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The fact that we get false reports of miracles and successful mediums and the like suggests the opposite.
quote: If the only way to get evidence is to be deceived into accepting unreliable and likely false reports then it may well be because there are no real miracles.
quote: Given your record of bias and - to be generous - poor judgement why should we trust your opinion on which histories are good ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You could learn good judgement and demonstrate it. Or in the short term you could actually discuss the issues and provide real evidence. But if you are going to go on trusting people who say things you like no matter how untrustworthy they are, and go on claiming to have good evidence and good arguments when you obviously don’t - then of course your unsupported assertions aren’t going to be believed. It is the only sane response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So? That doesn’t make it good evidence. If that's all you have, if you can’t answer the reasons why it is poor and inadequate evidence - and you certainly haven’t - then that is your problem. Just insisting that it is good evidence despite that and blustering and bullying as you always do is neither honest nor productive.
quote: That is not even a sensible lie. I don’t object to the fact that you don’t have any other evidence - not at all. I accuse you of bad judgement because it’s true - you’ve proven it over and over again - and because you keep putting unsupported opinions forward as fact. Why should we believe the opinions of someone who is obviously grossly biased ? Someone who clearly isn’t making any effort to get at the truth ? You said not so long ago that you don’t believe Alex Jones when he claims to have actually seen human-animal chimeras. But you will believe him when he makes equally wild claims - where he doesn’t even claim to be a witness - whenever you like the idea. How can that be anything other than bad judgement ? Accepting the unevidenced word of a man who tells crazy lies ?
quote: Millions have been persuaded by religions you regard as false. According to the Revelation many people are supposed to be persuaded to worship the Beast. Aside from the fact that you give no credit to the persuasive efforts of the proselytisers - itself a big omission - that’s not a good argument. It doesn’t say anything about the actual quality of the evidence. Reality doesn’t have to be the way you want it to be. We don’t have to pretend that reality is the way you want it to be. We don’t have to accept that your evidence is good evidence just because it’s the only evidence you have. If you can’t rationally answer the criticisms of you evidence then you lose. Too bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Just more assertions you can’t support.
quote: The usual dishonest bullying to try to cover up the fact that you don’t have a case.
quote: I’ve made arguments. You haven’t responded. You haven’t even offered real arguments of your own.
quote: What a silly lie. There are and have been converts to Islam - even in modern America - who weren’t forced into it. Muhammad Ali wasn’t forced into it, to mention just one famous name.
quote: Well that explains you.
quote: You know if you actually thought about it you would see that this silly pretence only makes your religion look worse. At least with the argument that Faith is required you can be honest about the weakness of the evidence.
quote: No. Being defeated in rational argument is evidence that you are wrong.
quote: In reality the story is rather more mixed. The humanism of the Enlightenment did a lot. The increase in wealth and (eventually) living standards through industrialisation and exploitation of less developed peoples did, too. Christians argued for slavery as well as against it. And for apartheid and Jim Crow laws. The witch hunts with their tortures and executions were a product of Christianity. Christianity helped foster anti-semitism, and persecution of the Jews. But all that is a subject for another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Haven’t there ? Please produce evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024