New bus ad: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"

[ZombieHorde]

The actual title of the article is: Christ meets Bigfoot: More irreverent atheist ads set to hit Canadian cities
By Carmen Chai, Postmedia News December 2, 2010

The atheist group behind last year's controversial bus ads suggesting "there's probably no God" is rolling out a provocative new set of posters on buses across the country that places Allah beside Bigfoot and Christ beside psychics.

The new posters bear the slogan: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" with "Allah, Bigfoot, UFOs, Homeopathy, Zeus, Psychics, Christ" listed below.

They will hit Toronto streetcars in January, pending final approval from the Toronto Transit Commission, said Justin Trottier, national executive director of the Centre for Inquiry, an atheist organization. After the Toronto debut, the organization plans to post the ads to buses in Calgary, Vancouver, Ottawa, Saskatoon and Montreal.

"Why is belief in Bigfoot dismissed as delusional while belief in Allah and Christ is respected and revered? All of these claims are equally extraordinary and demand critical examination," says the campaign's website, www.extraordinary-claims.com.

-snip the rest of the article-

Read more: http://www.canada.com/health/Christ+meets+Bigfoot+More+irreverent+atheist+Canadian+cities/3913741/story.html#ixzz176aYsLx5

[rug]

1. I hope they put the criteria of acceptable evidence on the next bus.

[ZombieHorde]

2. The criteria for acceptable evidence would depend on the claim.

The best first step, in my opinion, would be to clearly define the claim.

[rug]

3. The claim is wellknown: omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous, et cetera.

Can't wait to see the protocols to test it.

[ZombieHorde]

4. The bus ad mentions several claims, such as bigfoot and homeopathy, but I am guessing you are

talking about a god.

Usually the person making the claim sets up the protocols and experiements, and then submits the results for peer review.

If I wanted to create a set of protocols to test the existence of a god I believed in, I would first ask myself some questions. What evidence do I see for the existence of a god? How did I come to the conclusion a god most likely exists? I think these questions are a good place to start.

[rug]

6. That simply returns to the original question: what is acceptable evidence?

[laconicsax]

8. As ZombieHorde said the last time, it depends on the claim being made.

Someone making a claim about homeopathy should be able to provide conclusive evidence that supports their claim.
Someone making a claim about Bigfoot should be able to provide conclusive evidence that supports their claim.
Someone making a claim about a god should be able to provide conclusive evidence that supports their claim.

Any evidence that clearly supports an extraordinary claim would be extraordinary. That the universe is expanding was an extraordinary claim, and Hubble's evidence to back it up was extraordinary.

That people given large doses of a substance get sicker than those given smaller doses doesn't prove homeopathy.
Grainy footage of a figure in the distance doesn't prove Bigfoot.
A rainbow doesn't prove the Abrahamic god.

[rug]

12. You're being circular. The claim was made thousands of years ago.

All you're arguing about is what evidentiary test to use.

[laconicsax]

15. Stating that it's up two the claimant to provide evidence isn't circular.

In thousands of years, no evidence has been put forth to support the claim that the Abrahamic god exists that isn't simply evidence of something else. Rainbows used to be presented as evidence, but now we know that they're a natural phenomenon caused by refraction.

If someone says "I have a Susan B. Anthony dollar in my pocket," they should be able to show their coin. If they can't, then why should anyone believe them?

You've already stated that you don't need evidence to believe in your god. That's fine, but some people have standards. If your god exists and you want people to take your belief seriously, then prove the existence of your god.

[rug]

19. Actually, I'm indifferent as to whether you take my beliefs seriously.

Can you say the same?

[laconicsax]

21. For someone so indifferent, you sure spend a lot of time arguing for them.

Are you just trying to convince yourself?

[rug]

30. As it turns out, my interest was in responding to the OP. Yet here you are again.

It wouldn't do to be rude and ignore you, would it?

[laconicsax]

42. If this was the only thread you'd ever participated in, you might have had a point.

Since when has being rude been a consideration for you either?

[cleanhippie]

27. Puh-LEASE! You are anything BUT indifferent.

We can read every post you have made here in R&T, and those posts show that you are anything BUT indifferent.

[rug]

29. Really? I'm flattered. I'll have to give you all special t-shirts for Christmas.

:hi:

[cleanhippie]

35. You are flattered that we can see your intentional misrepresentation?

That's strange.

[rug]

46. Ok, I'll make it matching t-shirts.

[cleanhippie]

124. Your T-shirts match? What for?

[ZombieHorde]

11. Good question. What evidence did you find acceptable? nt

[rug]

14. Frankly, I don't require any.

But then, I didn't pay for the bus ad. Maybe we should ask them.

[darkstar3]

58. You require no evidence for an incredible claim?

I find that laughable. Here's another incredible claim for you to accept without evidence:

You can fly, and so can anyone else. All you have to do is jump from a high enough place and miss the ground.

[rug]

63. What I find laughable is an attempt to measure a god.

What I find more than laughable is the flailing insistence on using tools that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, like trying to change a tire with a spoon.

[darkstar3]

67. The Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument has been debunked.

See problem #2 from post #55.

[rug]

71. No it hasn't.

[darkstar3]

74. What an effective argument. Contradiction.

I'll try. "Yes it has."

Now maybe you can try a method of argumentation that hasn't been abandoned by middle-schoolers.

[rug]

77. I always try to address the listener.

An apt response to "The Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument has been debunked." is No, it hasn't.

[darkstar3]

79. Let's try a link.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html

Dawkins shows here, with some brevity, that Gould's NOMA is fatally flawed.

[rug]

85. And?

If it had anything to do with the core issue of a god's existence, rather than, morals, evolution and Mary's decaying body, it may be pertinent. But it doesn't.

[darkstar3]

88. Oh but it does.

Any claim at all regarding God's interaction with this universe, including creation, falls directly under the purview of science, and claiming that evidence is not needed is attempting to separate theology and science using Non-Overlapping Magesteria, which is a bullshit argument.

Oh, and BTW, let's not get off topic here through your attempt at dismissal. You claimed NOMA hadn't been debunked. I believe that link and your acceptance of its premise shows otherwise.

[rug]

92. Sorry, it doesn't.

The essential element of the interaction between God and the universes(s), as posited by believers, is the latter's creation by the former.

The "purview of science" has shown only that all things have come from something else.

The nontheist is faced with a choice between a material universe which always existed, an illogical scenario which flies in the face of the physical evidence, or to await an explanation by the coming of future scientific knowledge, an act of faith exceeded only by its irony.

[darkstar3]

94. That's hilarious

Not only have you shown that you haven't studied the different possibilities of universal origin, you have shown that you completely misunderstand the application of the word faith.

And the funny thing, you think that telling atheists they have faith will be a snarky insult. I think you might need to investigate that idea a little further.

[rug]

97. I see. You have no substantive response.

[darkstar3]

100. I have included substance everywhere in this thread.

You have done everything you can to dodge or dismiss it. If you want to bow out now, fine, but before you come back to this same debate in a future thread, perhaps you should investigate all aspects of causality, universal origin, the god of the gaps.

[ZombieHorde]

108. Not knowing how the universe came to be is not an act of faith, it is just being honest. nt

[laconicsax]

5. Omnipotence is a logical contradiction.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, but provides some avenues of potential evidence--an omnipotent entity should be able to make 4-sided triangle for example.

Believers should be able to back up their extraordinary claims...that is if those claims have any merit.

[onager]

7. Omnipotent and omniscient are also contradictory.

As atheists have enjoyed pointing out since Year One.

An omnipotent being is all-powerful and can change anything anytime. But an omniscient being already knows what will happen, and doesn't need to change anything.

I always like to check with the real con artists experts on these questions. Here's the definition of "god" from Catholic Reference.net. You might need to read this a few times. And if you expect it to make sense, you may also need to have a few drinks...

The one absolutely and infinitely perfect spirit who is the Creator of all. In the definition of the First Vatican Council, fifteen internal attributes of God are affirmed, besides his role as Creator of the universe: "The holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one true, living God, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. He is almighty, eternal, beyond measure, incomprehensible, and infinite in intellect, will and in every perfection. Since He is one unique spiritual substance, entirely simple and unchangeable, He must be declared really and essentially distinct from the world, perfectly happy in Himself and by his very nature, and inexpressibly exalted over all things that exist or can be conceived other than Himself" (Denzinger 3001).

Reflecting on the nature of God, theology has variously identified what may be called his metaphysical essence, i.e., what is God. It is commonly said to be his self-subsistence. God is Being Itself. In God essence and existence coincide. He is the Being who cannot not exist. God alone must be. All other beings exist only because of the will of God.


http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33757

[laconicsax]

9. Incomprehensible, but described with specific attributes.

Gotta love self-contradictory arguments.

[rug]

13. Yes, and?

[Iggo]

16. Absolute and Infinite.

Damn. Couldn't even get past the first sentence fragment.

[rug]

10. It is, but evidence is a matter of observation and measurement, not logic.

Logic is a subset of philosophy, as is theology.

That is why I find the bus ad, and its argument in general, to be unsatisfying. The ancient argument regarding a god is essentially theological, certainly philosophical.

The semantics of science and theology are two entirely different things. Furthermore, the recent disccoveries, especially in physics, are going to soon require a reshaping of these semantics and linear logic itself. It would not surprise me to read about a quadriateral triangle discovered inside the arsenic-based bacterium.

[laconicsax]

17. Obviously you didn't read past the subject line, so I'll re-post it here.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, but provides some avenues of potential evidence--an omnipotent entity should be able to make 4-sided triangle for example.

Believers should be able to back up their extraordinary claims...that is if those claims have any merit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=266524&mesg_id=266532

It isn't logically impossible for bacteria to substitute arsenic for phosphorus in their DNA. In fact, it's a plausible premise. Arsenic, being immediately below phosphorus on the periodic table illustrates that arsenic can easily be substituted for phosphorus in chemical reactions (that's part of what makes it toxic to us). Since arsenic can readily be substituted for phosphorus, why shouldn't we find bacteria already possessing adaptations to thrive in arsenic rich environments? The NASA announcement was simply about some researchers finding that if they put arsenic-tolerant bacteria in solutions with higher arsenic concentrations than in Mono Lake, those bacteria developed adaptations to handle the higher levels of arsenic.

It is, however, logically impossible to have a 4-sided triangle. If your omnipotent god exists, it should be able to produce one as evidence for its existence and make it known who made it and why. If you're getting ready to dodge with another repetition of 'the existence of God is a philosophical question,' keep in mind that using that argument means that you don't think your god doesn't exist as anything more than an abstract concept.

[rug]

18. Obviously you miss the point.

You're simply proposing that no nonmaterial thing can exist.

Why?

Because it cannot be measured materially.

Why not?

Because no nonmaterial thing can be measured materially.

Therefore it does not exist.

And so on.

The simple fact is that type of closed circuit argument doesn't disprove a god anymore than an assertion god exists proves god exisrs.

It's an argument that has been made thousands of times by millions of people for hundreda of years. All without resolution.

In the end, it's a stupid argument that is probably best suited for the side of a bus.

[laconicsax]

22. Are you having fun playing with that straw?

Also, do you really believe that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a stupid argument? If so, do you also believe in Bigfoot, extraterrestrial UFOs, homeopathy, psychics, and adhere to Islam? Or perhaps are you capriciously selective when it comes to which extraordinary claims you'll accept without evidence (i.e. practice hypocrisy).

[rug]

31. Speaking of straw, do you see a difference between Bigfoot, extraterrestrial UFOs, homeopathy,

psychics (and physics, for that matter), on the one hand, and Islam et al. on the other? Does it really elude you that one is susceptible to material evidence and proof and the other is not? If it does, we're wasting our time. If it doesn't, get back to me. Or not.

[darkstar3]

38. What makes you think

that Islam, or any religion, is not susceptible to material evidence and proof? Why are they in some sort of special class?

[rug]

45. The issue is material evidence of a god, not a religion.

I'm pretty sure there is acceptable evidence that Islam exists.

[darkstar3]

48. Then let's be more specific.

Obviously I meant the claims made by each religion, which is also what you were talking about before so why don't you get back on point?

[rug]

52. Ok. The fundamental claim is that a nonmaterial god exists.

How do you propose to verify or disprove that claim without, in turn, asserting the claim that only material things exist?

It's a cosmic Mexican standoff.

[darkstar3]

55. But there's a three-fold problem that you're ignoring.

1. You haven't provided any reason why ANY nonmaterial thing should exist, let alone a deity that could be called God.
2. As soon as you make a claim that any of those nonmaterial things interact with out material universe, it falls under the purview of science to test that claim of interaction.
3. Disproving God is irrelevant. The one who posits the existence of God must pass the above hurdles before the question of disproof even remotely enters into the discussion.

[rug]

62. 1. You haven't provided any reason why only material things should exist.

Rather, you have chosen to accept a purely material basis of existence. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

2. Following that, a nontheist will examine the universe(s) and conclude that nothing can exist outside it.
A theist wil examine the universe(s) and conclude it is the result of God.
Note: both will examine the same thing. One will see it as evidence there is no god; the other will see it as evidence there is a God.

3. Proving or disproving God is irrelevant. Equally, the one who posits the existence of matter (in its broad sense) alone, must accept that the premise of that position is simply that nothing nonmaterial can be measured or tested. And that he or she is content to leave the inquiry there.

[skepticscott]

64. The notion that nothing nonmaterial

can be measured or tested is idiotic. No thinking person believes that, and it certainly doesn't follow from the positing of the existence of matter.

[rug]

69. Name one.

Btw, is it necessary to spell out that matter in its broad sense includes energy, plasma and the exotic particles?

And, for the sake of precision, I did not say it flows from the existence of matter; it flows from the exclusive existence of maatter.

[skepticscott]

109. Courage can be tested

Honesty and integrity can be tested. Skill and knowledge can be tested. Want more? Or are you going to move the goalposts on me and say "Buuuuuuut....I only meant the non-material things that DON'T disprove my point!!"

There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world. If you'd like to propose something that disproves that assertion, have at it.

[darkstar3]

112. A good point,

but I'd just like to say that I think the argument being trotted out here actually conflates the terms "nonmaterial" and "supernatural." I originally thought that bypassing that particular conflation would more quickly get us to the problem of proof, but maybe you'll have more luck with your way.

[skepticscott]

116. Well, there is no particular reason to assume

that the things people often refer to as "supernatural" are necessarily non-material. According to the Bible, God (manifested as Jesus) was certainly material enough. Demons, angels and the like (if they existed at all) could be similarly so, for all anybody knows. In fact I've yet to see anything in our friend's argument that proposes that they could be anything but, given the broad definition of "matter" being used.

[rug]

114. What do you use to test courage?

What do you use to test honesty and integrity?

Skill and knowledge can be easily measured.

What is your basis for asserting there are two, and only two, forms of existence, imaginary and physical? Into which category do you put courage, honesty and integrity?

[skepticscott]

115. So now you acknowledge that

non-material things can be tested? That your previous statement was BS? What a shock.

And look in any basic psychology text for tests of people's honest and integrity. Sheesh. Do you want me to spoon feed you everything?

Courage, honesty and integrity fall into the category of things which are conceptual (an idea you deliberately left out of my previous post for some unknown reason), existing in the mind, but not physically. Imaginary things also fall into that second, non-material category. A bit better reading comprehension would suit you well.

[rug]

117. No, I asked how you can test it.

Do you acknowledge that it is not a biological response, honed by social conditioning, appearing as a reaction to extreme external circumstances?

Frankly, I never saw the Romantic in you.

[skepticscott]

118. Your post 69 said "Name one"

I named five, two of which you admitted to. Are you now saying that you need all five demonstrated to you? Are you really saying that you believe there is absolutely NO WAY to test whether someone has courage, honesty or integrity? If so, please say so explicitly, and we'll get down to business.

[rug]

121. You haven't answered my question.

[skepticscott]

133. I did answer your question

As I stated above. You asked me to name one non-material thing that could be tested or measured. I gave you more than that, and could have given you many more. Tell me how many more than the ONE that you asked for that you are now requiring before you'll concede the relevant point here.

If you're still going to pretend that whether or not the single characteristic of courage can be measured is the ultimate and central issue, fine. Just state that and I'll show you why you're wrong, and that you're already well aware that it can be tested. But I suspect you know as well as I do that it isn't, and that this is just a pathetic attempt by you to try to save face on an issue that you've been proven completely foolish on.

Have at it.

[rug]

138. I'll repeat it:

Do you acknowledge that it is not a biological response, honed by social conditioning, appearing as a reaction to extreme external circumstances?

[cleanhippie]

146. You may want to have those tires changed on your goalposts.

Because you have been moving them all over the field.

[rug]

161. Try not speaking in cliches. You may be taken seriously.

[cleanhippie]

162. Did you have to look up the word "cliche"?

Come on, you can admit it.

BTW, what would you know about being taken seriously?

[skepticscott]

159. The fact that you keep clinging to

such a trivial side issue gives me all the answer I need. I know you have this desperate need to feel like you've scored a point, ANY point here, when you're real argument has been blown out of the water, but too bad. You're no longer a source of amusement.

[rug]

160. I'll tell you why it's not trivial, especially since you avoided an answer yet again.

If courage is as stated, it is material and subject to material testing.

If it is that, and more, what is that nonmaterial more, and how do you test it?

Beyond that, your post is embarrassing posturing requiring no further comment.

[USArmyBJJ]

164. I'll admit that I'm not a great thinker

I'll be the idiot here, and say that I don't understand how courage, as a non-material entity, can be measured. Obviously, you can put me in front of a firing squad and see how I react. But that wouldn't provide evidence that "courage" as some sort of abstract, non-material concept existed. It would only prove that I have or do not have some sort of societally-defined character trait called "courage." It would test the material aspect (how I react to a particular situation), but it certainly wouldn't test whether the trait existed as some sort of non-material object or entity. So, I'll admit to being confused as to how "courage" can be tested. The same goes with "skill" and "knowledge." It seems that I can test myself to see if I contain a trait that we have defined in some way. But I can't measure the abstract notion of skill and/or knowledge in any way that I can think of.

[cleanhippie]

202. What does the definition mean to you?

When you are asked "what is courage?", whatever definition you may come up with CAN be tested and measured in some way.

[USArmyBJJ]

204. Burden

I'm not the one arguing that some non-material "courage" can be tested. It's not up to me to come up with the definition and/or the test. It's up to the person making the claim.

[cleanhippie]

205. Sorry, I thought you were.

The post I replied to seemed to suggest that, I was just answering you.

[USArmyBJJ]

207. No prob

I ramble sometimes, so often my point gets confused ;)

[humblebum]

90. Actually, you are proving that atheism is anything but "free thinking" in its nature

and that organized atheism is attempting to dictate others' thought processes. this has been attempted many times over the past couple centuries. Bus ads are merely the latest manifestation. You fail to realize that there are other epistemologies out there and that is the fatal flaw of radical atheism. It is programmed thought.

[darkstar3]

91. That's quite a leap. n/t

[humblebum]

96. BTW, "nothing nonmaterial" is a double negative implying something material and

therefore it can be measured or tested.

[darkstar3]

103. Only if you can't read in context. n/t

[darkstar3]

66. Your semantic game fails

1. I have reason to believe in the existence of material things. They can be measured and interacted with. I simply require a reason to believe in something, and you have yet to provide a reason to believe in nonmaterial things.

2. A scientist can examine the universe and, theist or not, see that the need for a creator does not reveal itself in what we are able to see. The difference between a theistic scientist and an atheistic scientist is the concept of a dangling "why?". The atheist can let that "why?" sit without need of speculation, patiently waiting for science to provide the answer once we have advanced enough in our methods, while the theist must posit God as the answer to "why?". But the theist has no supporting evidence for that claim. Rather, they are simply filling in a gap.

3. You fail to understand the concepts of positive claims or burden of proof. I have not posited that the universe is made up of matter alone, and neither has anyone else. We don't make that absolute claim, but instead reserve judgment on the nonmaterial until we can see evidence for it. That is the nature of skepticism, of science, and of methodical investigation in general. Now, if you want someone to believe that the nonmaterial, for which we have no evidence, exists, then you need to find a way to support your hypothesis. You are making the positive claim, and it is therefore your burden to back it up.

Edit: Important missing word.

[rug]

70. You're making progress.

1. "a reason to believe" is not the same thing as evidence. Congratulations. Perhaps that should be on the next bus.

2. Old stuff.

3. Burden of proof is a legal term I am quite familiar with. It is really inapposite here. It does not give you refuge from establishing why material evidence musr be employed to measure nonmaterial things.

[darkstar3]

73. You're not.

1. What reason do you have besides evidence to believe something? Faith? Faith is insufficient for doing anything more than "preaching to the choir."

2. Badly dodged. You tried to bring up universal investigation as a reason for theists to believe in God. If you already knew why that argument was bunk, why'd you trot it out in the first place?

3. Dance all you want, but if you really understood the concept of burden of proof you'd know it's not just legally applicable but also applicable in debate. To reiterate, you have to find a way to back up your own hypothesis. You can't simply say "this is true" and expect people to believe you when all you have to back up your claim is "prove me wrong." I'd use Russel's Teapot as an example here, but I know that you're already familiar with it and choose to ignore its implications.

[rug]

83. You're regressing.

1. You've bravely picked up the evidence mantra again without once demonstrating why material evidence must be the criterion.

2. An out of hand rejection is not a dodge.

3. I don't dance at all. I find the burden of proof rule to be an impediment to free thought and discussion outside the many courtooms I've been in. There it is crucial to protect someone's liberty. Other than there, and high school debate clubs, it really is a sophomoric device, usually clumsily employeded to stifle, not advance discussion, Bertrand Russell notwithstanding.

[darkstar3]

87. You're still dodging.

1. You didn't answer the question. You make decisions every day about what to believe and what not to believe. What besides evidence do you use? When you can honestly answer this question, you will see how claiming that material evidence is not required for a special subset of claims is no more than special pleading.

2. You reject the problem of the god of the gaps? By what logic?

3. I have no problem with free thought. You are free to think whatever you want. But as soon as you wish to convince others to agree with you, YOU need proof. (That's why we teach kids in high school about the burden of proof, and I wish more high school kids would understand its implications and needs, because then politicians wouldn't be able to so easily lie to and manipulate people around the country.)

[rug]

93. I have no urge to convince others.

[darkstar3]

95. Your incessant parrotting of apologist arguments shows otherwise. n/t

[rug]

99. Ok, you've lost it.

[darkstar3]

101. Until our next meeting. Goodbye. n/t

[LARED]

24. Why would an omnipotent entity be able to make a

four sided triangle?

[laconicsax]

28. Omnipotent=all powerful.

An omnipotent being would be able to do anything (i.e. be limitless in ability).

This stuff is definitional.

[LARED]

33. A triangle is also definitional

By definition there is no such thing as a four sided triangle.

[darkstar3]

39. And here you find the logical impossibility.

An omnipotent being, by definition, wouldn't be constrained by definitions.

The four-sided triangle is a newer and more confusing argument for some. The classic argument against an omnipotent being is the old "creating a rock that he himself cannot move." That one has its problems too, but every one of these examples leads to the same conclusion: Omnipotence does not compute.

[laconicsax]

43. Here's the catch...

An omnipotent being would be able to exist despite being impossible.

[darkstar3]

44. +1

If nothing else, I laughed. :)

[LARED]

47. It's a ridiculous argument

Things like triangles are defined within our frame work of reality. We live within the physical laws of nature where a triangle has "three" "sides", "water" is "wet" and "rocks" have 'weight". We define things that way because it is useful, sensible and understandable in order to make sense of the natural world. By definition God is supernatural and outside the laws of nature.

You demand that an omnipotent entity MUST be able to do things outside of our understanding of nature and the physical laws we live within in order for a believer to provide evidence of a supernatural being existence. As you stated. "If your omnipotent god exists, it should be able to produce one (a four sided triangle) as evidence for its existence and make it known who made it and why." I ask how would we understand such a concept if it exists. We can't, if it is supernatural, and if it was shown to be natural once it was explained, it by definition is not a triangle as we understand the world.

You obviously know no one can provide evidence to prove omnipotence is NOT a logical contradiction, so it is a sophistic line of inquiry.

[darkstar3]

49. It's not a sophistic line of inquiry, it's a sipmle exercise in logic.

You have now admitted that omnipotence is a logical impossibility. Case closed.

[LARED]

56. Sure, if you insist

but the supernatural by definition does not fall within the framing of logical constructions. I guess all things defined as supernatural are logical impossibilities.

So why bother trying to frame it in that manner? Oh... that's right you get to close the case.

[darkstar3]

59. Now we're coming to the crux of the matter.

Now if a premise posits something that is physically impossible and logically inconsistent, why should you believe it?

[skepticscott]

65. The entire notion of the "supernatural" is meaningless

no matter how much the term gets tossed around. If you thought about the matter in any depth, you'd realize that.

[LARED]

72. While I appreciate your concern for my thinking skills

I think I'll still use the term supernatural.

[skepticscott]

110. There is, in fact

no such thing as the supernatural, except in our imaginations.

There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world. If things such as gods, angels, ghosts, or demons (which people often refer to as "supernatural) are anything but imaginary, then they must be considered as natural, existing in the natural world, amenable (at least in principle) to scientific inquiry, and subject to the same inviolable natural laws as all other things. Any appearance by such entities (assuming that they did, in fact, have a physical existence) of transcending those laws would be simply that-appearance. A ghost which passed through a solid wall or a god which could transform matter with the wave of a hand would not be exhibiting "super-natural" powers in violation of natural laws, but would rather be indicating to us that there are aspects of natural law which we simply have not yet discovered.

If you'd like to continue to argue points using such an ill-conceived concept, be my guest. I'm sure you can find plenty of other folks with no more understanding than you to use it on.

[dimbear]

20. All good fun and approved, but that's an inappropriate term for any serious

logical argument. Extraordinary is just too slippery a term to fit into serious inferences. Like the famous black swans, which would have seemed quite extraordinary before they showed up.

Once you throw the truth well peppered into the soup pot, it's not extraordinary any longer.

[trotsky]

25. It's just a simple way of differentiating claims.

"I have a $20 bill in my wallet" isn't all that extraordinary. You'd probably even be inclined to believe me. But even if you didn't, it isn't extraordinary for me to simply open up my wallet and show you the twenty.

"I invented a free energy machine and placed it on the moon for safekeeping." Compared to my first claim, this one is extraordinary. And to prove it, I'd have to come up with some pretty extraordinary evidence. I'd have to take you to the moon or retrieve it from the moon, and then demonstrate that it's actually producing free energy - which violates fundamental physical laws.

FWIW, claiming that black swans exist wouldn't have been all that extraordinary, and certainly the evidence required to prove it - simply locate a black swan - isn't extraordinary at all.

[darkstar3]

40. Well said.

Now if more people understood the phrase from the ad without explanation, I'd be happier.

[LARED]

23. The ads may be irreverent, but they other than that

they are fairly pointless and misleading.

Evidence, extraordinary or just ordinary, in terms of scientific value, for God does not exist. And I'm' pretty sure most anyone that has given this issue just a little bit of thought understands this. This is not testable so this is a faith based belief.

Same goes for Allah, Bigfoot, UFOs, Zeus, etc, But, homeopathy, Psychic ability etc are testable.

[edhopper]

26. Why not.

If God has actionable effects on the Universe. Then some evidence for those events should be testable.
If God has no effect on the World, wherefore is God?
If the Universe looks the same with or without God, why postulate a God exists at all.
Is it simply because people believe in him/her? What is the basis of this belief, if there is no effect from God.
If there is an effect, why can't it be tested?

[ZombieHorde]

37. Exactly. nt

[LARED]

60. How would you create a test for the existence of God?

A test implies some level of control. Something not possible with God as understood by man.

This dilemma tells me you can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

[darkstar3]

61. You should read post #55. n/t

[skepticscott]

68. You clearly don't even understand

the difference between testing something and "proving" it. Science and rational inquiry do not "prove" things. Do you grasp that simple concept?

Specific claims made about specific gods by believers in those gods CAN be tested. It's not that hard.

[LARED]

75. Well if it's not so hard my condescending friend

Explain how one would go about testing "Specific claims made about specific gods by believers in those gods"

[skepticscott]

106. Believers in the Christian god

claim that their god can heal illnesses, injuries, and other medical conditions and that prayers to that "god" requesting that people be healed will be heard and answered. The claimed effectiveness of intercessory prayer has been tested, and the testing described in the medical literature. Were you blithely unaware of that, or just being disingenuous and hoping no one would know better?

[Deep13]

141. That claim simply is not true.

If god were real, evidence of his existence would be everywhere. Faith only proves that people believe it, not that there is any basis for that belief.

"Evidence, extraordinary or just ordinary, in terms of scientific value, for God does not exist."

We agree on that at least.

[USArmyBJJ]

144. "If god were real, evidence of his existence would be everywhere."

Why is that logically necessary?

[cleanhippie]

208. Really?

You really don't know why its necessary? Really?

[USArmyBJJ]

211. Really n/t

[cleanhippie]

213. Think of something, anything at all, that you consider to be "real."

Is there evidence of that thing you are thinking of? Does that evidence meet the same criteria that you would require for anything else that is "real"?
Then logically, if a god were "real", there would be evidence of this god, right?

[klatu]

32. "Extraordinary Evidence"

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary
Evidence" has been the rallying call for most
anti-religious secularists and rightly so, as no religious
conception in history has been able to demonstrate the
efficacy of their claims or provide any direct evidence for a
creator God. That 'history' may very well have come to an end!
 

What science, religion, philosophy or theology, Hawkins or
Dawkins thought impossible has happened. History now has it's
first fully demonstrable proof for faith. And coming from
outside all existing theologies, clearly has 'tradition' in
the cross hairs. Quoting from an online review: 

"The first ever viable religious conception capable of
leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can
be tested and judged is now a reality. A teaching that
delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the
human condition that meets the Enlightenment criteria of
verifiable, direct cause and effect, evidence based truth
embodied in experience. For the first time in history, however
unexpected or unwelcome, the world must contend with a claim
to new revealed truth, a moral wisdom not of human
intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute
proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully
rational and justifiable belief! " 

If confirmed and there appears a growing concerted effort to
test and authenticate this material,  of which I am taking
part, this will represent a paradigm change in the nature of
faith and in the moral and intellectual potential of human
nature itself;  untangling the greatest  questions of human
existence: sustainability, consciousness, meaning, suffering,
free will and evil. And at the same time addressing the most
profound problems of our age.

While the religious will find this news most difficult,  those
who have claimed to be of an Enlightenment mind should find it
of particular interest. But if they are unable to appreciate
this change in the historical faith paradigm, to one that
conforms precisely to a criteria subject to test and
confirmation, then their own 'claim'  to rationality is no
more than pretension nor better then those theological
illusions they find so abhorrent.

A unexpected revolution appears to be under  way. More info at
http://www.energon.org.uk

[humblebum]

34. Sadly, the logical foundation of such a claim is

based on one of the most narrow-minded epistemologies ever designed. Put quite simply, but accurately: If you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch something, then it is nonsense to even speculate on its existence. So much for the claim of "free thinking".

[ZombieHorde]

36. You can speculate all you want, but if you think of something which can't be sensed, and does not

seem to affect the world in any, there is no reason for anyone to believe in your invention.

If I claim there is a ghostly stapler in your eyeballs, and this stapler can't be sensed, and its effects on the world can't be observed, would you dismiss the claim? Are ghostly staplers in your eyeball nonsense, or am I on to something? Should I expect people to take my ghostly stapler idea seriously?

[darkstar3]

41. Once again you trot out a straw man.

You ignore completely the use of scientific equipment to properly determine the existence of such things. We can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch magnetic fields, but we know they exist because we have instrumentation that can measure them and their effects.

You have created in incredible conflation, where you equate science with logical positivism, and then take logical positivism and reduce it to nothing more than sensory perception. If I ever had any hand in teaching you scientific concepts, I'd be mortified.

[skepticscott]

51. If you can show us anywhere

that a claim is made or a philosophy expounded that equates to: "If you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch something, then it is nonsense to even speculate on its existence", then by all means do so. Otherwise, stop trotting out this idiotic straw man every other month.

[trotsky]

54. Every other month?

More like every other week. I guess he follows the Republican party line - "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."

[humblebum]

80. That, quite obviously, would be logical empiricism. the idea was "trotted out"

around a century ago.

[darkstar3]

81. And you are oversimplifying it to a fault to meet your own agenda. n/t

[skepticscott]

104. In other words

you have nothing to point to at all. Try again, with some substance this time. Show us ONE quote from someone who makes this claim.

[humblebum]

113. i have noticed in the past that you have had trouble with certain terms

such as objectivity vs. subjectivity, deductive vs inductive. And now you are asking me to quote one person who comments on logical empiricism? I really don't think you are that ignorant.

[skepticscott]

119. If anyone has trouble with those terms,

it is you. You don't even comprehend that science operates inductively, rather than deductively. And not surprisingly, you've once again dodged a simple and direct demand for evidence to back up your claim.

You claim that the epistemology has been expounded that "If you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch something, then it is nonsense to even speculate on its existence." I call bullshit. Show us who expounds that point of view or go away.

[humblebum]

120. Empiricism is based upon sensory observation. Last I knew,

those were the five senses. Do you need for me to provide any of the several authoritative definitions for you? And yes, there is a deductive component to the scientific Method.

[skepticscott]

50. Although this statement gets tossed around a lot

by skeptical thinkers, it's really very problematic, and in my opinion, sacrifices accuracy and clarity in exchange for brevity and a clever turn of phrase. First and foremost, it begs the question of exactly what qualifies a claim (or evidence) as "extraordinary". That's by no means as self-evident and universally agreed upon an issue as the statement seems to imply.

One possibly answer to that question is that an extraordinary claim is one that challenges or violates an already strongly supported scientific law or principle. In that case "extraordinary" evidence would be that which is greater in weight than the evidence supporting the current paradigm. This particular way of interpreting the statement is by no means the only one, however, and does not necessarily apply to everything on the list.

Take UFOs, for instance (by which I assume is meant the claim that at least some reported UFOs are actually extraterrestrial in origin). The truth of that claim would violate no established law of nature (as would, for example, a perpetual motion machine), and challenges no currently well-supported scientific theories. Is simply the fact that it would be a remarkable and exciting discovery enough to make it "extraordinary"? Or the fact that we perceive it (from our own limited viewpoint) to be unlikely? And is the fact that there have been numerous mistaken and some fraudulent reports of the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs relevant? In fact, none of those has any realistic bearing on the likelihood of whether the next UFO sighting may actually be an alien spacecraft.

Or take the existence of Bigfoot (or the Yeti, or Loch Ness monster or numerous other such alleged creatures). Even if we regard claims of their existence as "extraordinary", would we require more evidence to convince us than we would require if a zoologist reported, say, discovering a new species of wild cat in the Amazon rain forest? Or would a well preserved carcass suffice in both cases?

Does a claim necessarily become "extraordinary" when it has been advanced many times over a long period and found completely lacking in evidence every time, but still continues to be made? Many of the things on this list would seem to fall into that category. But would an "alternative" medical treatment require more evidence to be accepted than a drug that claimed to be able to lower cholesterol (i.e. statistically significant results in controlled, double-blind clinical studies)? Does the lack of a plausible underlying mechanism for a claim necessarily render it "extraordinary"?

Just tossing out food for thought.

[ZombieHorde]

53. I don't think the saying is meant to guide scientists in their work,

I think the saying is meant for those who want others to believe in things without evidence.

[skepticscott]

57. No, it isn't really meant to guide scientists

(though there are a few who could use it), but it is much more focussed than you characterize it as. It is not merely a statement that things should not be accepted as true without evidence, but it is specifically about what level of evidence should be demanded for accepting certain types of claims as true.

[Jim__]

76. Is the claim that there are multiple universes extraordinary?

Is the claim that the universe has 11 dimensions extraordinary? Is the claim of nonlocality extraordinary?

I look on their website and I think they have cherry-picked what they call extraordinary claims to be those claims that they don't happen to agree with. Yes, it's a linguistic problem. And the problem is that sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking.

[darkstar3]

78. The difference there is slightly linguistic as well.

No one has claimed that the multiverse theory or the 11-dimensional foundation for string theory is the absolute truth. These are not claims like those you find in tabloids regarding Nessy, UFOs, or Bigfoot. These are scientific hypotheses that are not taken as truth but rather are currently being tested by a community of people who are excited about the possibilities of the outcomes.

In other words, though I admit this may be splitting the hair, you forgot the word "may". People currently claim that there may be multiple universes, or that there may be 11 dimensions, and the scientific community is still trying to puzzle it out. You don't hear the word "may" in the claims listed on the bus. You hear "I saw bigfoot," "I was abducted by aliens," or "I talked to Jesus last night."

[Jim__]

82. I know people who believe that Bigfoot is a possibility.

They look for more evidence. I know people who believe in some forms of ESP, they look for more evidence. The website doesn't mention that many people who believe these things are possible are waiting for more evidence to validate those beliefs. So, many of these claims seem to be in the same boat as some scientific claims. Yet none of the scientific claims are on the list. Once again, it's cherry picking beliefs they disagree with.

I know people who believe in god who question the truth of that belief. They're not waiting for more evidence, but that is because they accept the claim on faith.

[darkstar3]

84. You just drew the line you were looking for, and it's FAITH.

While you may know people who simply suspect that Bigfoot may be real but withhold judgment until they find further proof, there are just as many if not more people who have faith that Bigfoot exists. The same applies to UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, ESP, ghosts, and any number of other things that could have been included in the bus ad.

The point is, faith is insufficient for reason, and inadequate for ANY kind of evangelism.

[Jim__]

86. Yes, but I isolated "faith" as an aspect of religious beliefs.

Not belief that Bigfoot may be real. Not belief that some forms of ESP may be real. Yet their list lumps all these beliefs together and omits scientific beliefs that certainly seem quite extraordinary. Once again, it's cherry picking.

[darkstar3]

89. Are they cherry picking, or are you?

They are using examples of things where people have faith and nothing more to back up their claims of truth. You are attempting to draw a distinction between faith in Bigfoot and religious faith. What makes religious faith so 'special'?

[Jim__]

98. I'm listing some scientific claims that I think are extraordinary.

Are you saying that those claims: multiverse, 11 dimensional universe, nonlocality, are ordinary? If they're not ordinary, then it seems like at least one of them should have made the list.

As to your claim: They are using examples of things where people have faith and nothing more to back up their claims of truth; if they're not really talking about extraordinary claims, then they should have made a more careful statement than: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Like I say, it's sloppy language.

The distinction between a belief in Bigfoot and a religious belief in god is that the religious belief is openly based on faith. I've never heard anyone claim that they have faith in Bigfoot, and I know people who think it's a possibility who would expicitly deny having faith in it.

[darkstar3]

102. No, you're engaging in special pleading.

You're trying to equate all non-religious claims in one group, and religious claims in another. It doesn't work.

Oh, and your anecdotal evidence doesn't change the fact that there ARE in fact people who have faith in Bigfoot, Nessy, and UFOs. Entire documentaries have been written about them.

[Jim__]

105. Once more, are those scientific claims extraordinary?

"extraordinary claims" is the slogan they're using. Your arguments about religions and faith are totally beside the point.

[darkstar3]

111. If you want to argue semantics, answer this:

Are they "claims"? If you want to get into this, then let's get into it. What's the difference between a hypothesis and a claim?

[Jim__]

123. Which of the things listed on their website are "claims"?

Specifically, what claim is being made about leprechauns?

And, yes, most religious beliefs are claims. But, again, I differentiate religious claims and non-religious claims. The non-religious items on the website that have been raised with me have been raised as hypotheses. So, when they put "Bigfoot" on their website, are they talking about all general talk about Bigfoot, e.g. are they talking about people who hypothsize about it; or are they omitting that talk from their claim about claims? Again, their language is sloppy, so what they mean is not clear. A common problem with bumper sticker type claims.

[darkstar3]

128. Oh for crying out loud.

I see you flatly refused to answer the simple question regarding the difference between a hypothesis and a claim. You also flat out admit special pleading in the form of putting religious claims in their own little box. This tells me that you have absolutely nothing to stand on, and are grasping at straws and anecdotal evidence in order to support your premise.

[Jim__]

132. Your post is somewhat comical.

You claim I refused to answer your question. Here is a list of the questions you refused to answer in this short subthread:

• Questions post #76: Is the claim that there are multiple universes extraordinary? Is the claim that the universe has 11 dimensions extraordinary? Is the claim of nonlocality extraordinary?
  
• Question post #98: Are you saying that those claims: multiverse, 11 dimensional universe, nonlocality, are ordinary?
  
• Question post #105: Once more, are those scientific claims extraordinary?
  
• Questions post #123: Which of the things listed on their website are "claims"? Specifically, what claim is being made about leprechauns?
  

Then you actually start whining that I'm not answering your question: I see you flatly refused to answer the simple question regarding the difference between a hypothesis and a claim.

You are kidding, right? You have a serious problem in that you don't seem to even read the responses to your posts. Just like you can't see that the website is using "claims" ambiguously, as is clearly demonstrated by even a perfunctory glance at their list.Then you refuse to answer questions about which items on their list are "claims"; or to respond to specific questions about whether or not specific items are "claims".

Oh for crying out loud. Indeed! It is pointless to try to engage in a discussion with someone who repeatedly refuses to respond to direct questions, then whines when he thinks one of his questions goes unanswered.

[darkstar3]

134. All of the questions you show there boil down to only one restated several times,

and I have been trying to answer that question with a question. Now, do you have an answer for the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a claim? I believe that when you find it you will realize exactly why the things you are trying to focus on here such as the 11-dimensional foundation for string theory don't qualify as "extraordinary claims".

Give it a shot, and let's see what happens.

[cleanhippie]

212. If I am reading you correctly...

then yes, asserting that there may be a multiverse or that there may be 11 dimensions ARE extraordinary claims( its really a hypothesisbut I am trying to make a point here), and people are working on finding that extraordinary evidence to support that. The difference is, is that those making the claims (hypothesis) about a multiverse or 11 dimensions are NOT stating that they in fact DO exist, which is what most religious believers DO assert. See the difference?

Maybe in plain language it is better seen...

Scientist: "There may be a multiverse, and we are working on experiments to try and find evidence to support that claim."

Religious believer: "My god is real, he is omniscient and omnipotent, and its written in this book. I don't need any more evidence than that."

You DO see the difference, right?

[ZombieHorde]

107. Are people trying to convince you the universe has 11 dimensions, or

are people saying the universe may have 11 dimensions because of X and Y?

When I read strange scientific stuff, it is usually accompanied by "might" and "one explanation."

[Jim__]

122. Is the slogan about things people are trying to convince me about?

Because if that's what it's about, then their slogan should probably say that. BTW, there are lots of things listed on that website about extraordinary claims that no one has ever tried to convince me of. People have talked to me about things like Bigfoot and acupuncture; but no one has ever advocated these things to me. And, yes, the people who tell me there might be a Bigfoot, usually tell me why they think this might be true.

[ZombieHorde]

125. I don't know anyone who believes in Bigfoot, but I do know people who believe

in, and tried to convince me of, homeopathic medicine, divination, ESP, government-alien conspiracies, Jesus Christ, demons, and ghosts.

I think atheist and theist billboards need to be read in today's context of religious debate.

[Jim__]

126. How does Bigfoot fit into the context of today's religious debate?

The poster on the picture of the bus contains the word Bigfoot.

I'm not sure how ESP, government-alien conspiracies, leprechauns etc fit into that context. One of my problems with this billboard is that you can interpret it as being part of a religious debate; but other people can interpret it quite differently. When I go to this website, it seems that all the claims they dislike are listed as extraordinary claims. Personally, I consider claims about Bigfoot to be far less extraordinary than claims about an 11 dimensional universe. But, since the claims about an 11 dimensional universe come from source these people approve of, they don't see these claims as extraordinary; or, at least conspicuously omit all such claims from their list.

I just think their language is sloppy.

[ZombieHorde]

127. I agree slogans are usually ambiguous.

"We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" This does not really capture the fight for gay civil rights, but it's catchy and it served its purpose just fine.

I think, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is similar. I do agree the slogan is not concise, but it is catchy and serves a purpose.

ESP and the others fit in to theology under the term, New Age.

[darkstar3]

129. The 11-dimensional universe isn't a claim.

It's a scientific hypothesis. We call it a hypothesis because we know it hasn't remotely been proven true yet and we want to test it.

Now tell me whether ESP is a claim, or a hypothesis.

[Jim__]

131. ESP is frequently an object of scientific study.

For example, see this paper. Is it ever used differently? I imagine it is. But, the website doesn't distinguish between these uses of ESP. It makes a blanket statement about ESP.

[darkstar3]

135. No, it simply says that if you're going to claim ESP exists,

you need to have some very serious evidence to back it up. Of course, scientists working on a hypothesis don't claim that it exists, do they?

[edhopper]

130. I will give this a try

can you the believer (talking to any believer here) tell me what physical effect God has on Earth or the Universe? Then we should have a testable claim. Extraordinary or not.

[USArmyBJJ]

137. question

I'm asking this as a sincere question (not Sophistic), because I don't know the answer. If I said that God acted in a physical way by resurrecting Jesus, is there a way to test that claim? I think I might be confused on what it means exactly to "test" the claim, so I'm interested in whether historical claims can be tested in any real way.

[edhopper]

139. My question

was about if this God had any observable physical effect on our present Universe. This is something that could be tested.
As for Jesus, the evidence for Jesus' life is only in books written decades after the event and the only copies of those we have are translations written centuries later.
There is nothing to test and I don't see enough evidence there to back the claim.
Historical claims can be corroborated with Archeological evidence. The contemporaneous accounts of Pompey for example.

[USArmyBJJ]

140. The same could be said for Socrates

We only have writings about him written by others. He didn't write anything. There is no archeological evidence for his existence. In fact, only three people wrote anything about him, and they wrote about him in fictionalized plays. Are we saying that the historical method cannot be used as evidence for something? Even if we have archeological evidence for someone - can that really be "tested"? The past is dead, we can't exactly put it into a laboratory and observe it. But we use the historical method to come to a consensus about whether someone in the past existed. There is a general consensus that Socrates existed (as there is with Jesus).

I understand what your question was - whether or not there is an observable physical effect in the present tense that can be tested. I don't know the answer to that. But I'm wondering whether that is the only type of evidence that should be deemed worthy, or whether or not logical evidence, historical evidence, etc should be used when discussing the matter.

[laconicsax]

142. Socrates' existence isn't a fundamental belief for billions of religious adherents.

If a scroll were found tomorrow conclusively showing that Socrates didn't really exist, not much would change. He same can't be said about Jesus.

[USArmyBJJ]

143. Don't want to derail the debate

The debate isn't really about the existence of Jesus. So, I don't want to sidetrack it. Needless to say, I'm not sure how it would matter whether Socrates is a matter of belief for religious adherents or not. Neither of those affect the "truth" of their existence.

The question here is: Is it rational to believe certain things, even extraordinary ones, with evidence not derived by use of the scientific method? If we say only those things that can be proven by the scientific method can act as "evidence," then there doesn't seem to be any possibility that a scroll could "conclusively show" that Socrates existed. The historical method is fundamentally different than the scientific method, but everyone seems to get the idea that, despite that, we can accept historical evidence as evidence and reason for belief in certain things. We take a few plays by a few people, apply the historical method to them, and rationally come to the conclusion that is is more probable than not that Socrates existed. No one considers that belief irrational. Why would we then consider people irrational for taking certain metaphysical/philosophical arguments and saying that it's more probable than not that there is some sort of God? What really are the evidentiary standards we are setting here?

I'm more than open to the idea that I'm completely wrong. There may be a way to scientifically test those things that I don't recognize as being testable (metaphysical truths, historical truths, logical and mathematical truths, ethical beliefs, aesthetic judgments, etc). We all hold certain sets of beliefs that are completely rational to hold despite our inability to truly test their truth. I'm open to being wrong about any of this. I'm not a scientist or expert, so I recognize my fallibility here. But I want to hear a good explanation of what evidentiary standards we're setting.

[laconicsax]

149. This is the subject you brought up, don't try to weasel out of it.

What is the "truth" of their existence?

BTW, I never suggested a scroll that showed that Socrates definitively existed. I suggested the opposite--one that conclusively shows that he didn't actually exist. There's a big difference as it pertains to your comparison of Jesus and Socrates. If it were conclusively shown that Jesus was a real historical figure, the (significant) questions of his nature (deity or not) as well as his alleged death and resurrection would still be unanswered.

However, if it were conclusively shown that Jesus was not a real historical figure, billions of Christians would need to figure out what their religion really means to them and whether they could force themselves to believe something they know to be a lie.

[USArmyBJJ]

150. weasel out of it?

Please see my response below, mapping the argument. The reason I'm not derailing this thread is because your point is not relevant. Or, at least I don't see its relevance. Maybe if you explain how questions about the historicity of Jesus relate in some way to the argument that scientific inquiry is not an adequate mechanism for the full scope of human knowledge, I can engage the debate. As of now though, this argument is just irrelevant.

[laconicsax]

153. Sorry, you don't get to change the subject then demand everyone else join you.

This thread isn't about whether "scientific inquiry is an adequate mechanism for the full scope of human knowledge" and the comment starting this sub-thread doesn't make that claim. It is a straw man you invented and to insist that everyone argue it is the height of arrogance.

[USArmyBJJ]

158. I wasn't aware

that I insisted that anyone, much less everyone, argue my point. The original post I responded to asked for testable claims. I responded that I thought the question was inadequate and irrelevant because a "testable claim" is too narrow a definition of evidence. At least, this is what I meant to say. Obviously, I was unclear on that point. But, I would argue that this really is the important debate of the entire thread - if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then we need to be sure that we understand what evidence and extraordinary mean. That seems fairly straightforward to me.

[humblebum]

145. But it is still a very relevant comparison. Historical evidence is

necessarily quite often more subjective and circumstantial than objective, but the greater the body of evidence becomes, the greater the probabibility becomes. Many of the atheistic arguments are similarly based on subjective unproven opinion.

[laconicsax]

147. It's only a relevant comparison if you leave reality out of it.

Christianity relies on Jesus being a real historical figure as a central tenet of faith. Can you name a religion which is dependent on Socrates being a real historical figure?

For Jesus and Socrates to be comparable, either a religion with over a billion adherents would need to be based on Socrates' life and death or Jesus would need to be only as significant as Nietzsche.

Also, there's more evidence that Socrates was actually a real person than there is for Jesus. Socrates was at least mentioned by contemporaries.

[USArmyBJJ]

148. mapping the argument

Original argument: The only acceptable evidence is evidence that is scientifically testable. (At least, this is the line of argument that I was responding to.)

Rejoinder: We often accept evidence that isn't testable. For instance, we accept historical evidence despite our inability to observe history. We accept that Socrates existed despite the fact that we can't test that theory. We just apply different methodologies to arrive at the conclusion.

Your response: But Socrates isn't a religious figure! Jesus is!

I hope you can see with this map that your argument is not responsive to the rest of the debate. The point of the original argument was just to demonstrate that there are non-scientific means of coming to know things. We can argue the historicity of Jesus, but it wouldn't matter because it's beside the point. If I'm off-base here, explain it to me. I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong. But "Jesus wasn't real!" really isn't a rejoinder to an argument about the limited scope of scientific inquiry.

EDIT: I deleted an unwarranted ad hominem.

[laconicsax]

151. Your map is inaccurate and incomplete.

The original argument was, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The standard dodge given in response was "what kind of evidence would count?"

The response (to which you replied) was "the evidence would be dependent on the physical effect God has on the world."

Your counterargument was that we accept historical evidence for certain things, so not just scientific evidence should count.

The response to you was that historical evidence is often backed by archeological evidence and that you were changing the subject.

You compared the question of Jesus' existence to that of Socrates.

That's where I jumped in to point out that the question of Jesus' existence is different than that of Socrates because the answer has completely different significance for both individuals.

The historicity of Jesus is an important question that must be resolved before the extraordinary claims about his life, death, resurrection, and nature can be addressed. As there are no comparable claims about Socrates, the issue of his existence is far less significant.

[USArmyBJJ]

156. ok, I see what happened

I understand the confusion, and it's largely my fault. But I think you seized on an example to make an argument against a case I never made.

Starting with the genealogy where it becomes relevant.

1: Evidence would be dependent on the physical effect God has on the world.

2: We accept historical evidence for certain things, so not just scientific evidence should count. I asked the question, "If I said Jesus was resurrected by God, could we test that?" This was apparently ill-advised because it confused the issue. The issue was not actually whether Jesus was resurrected. It was simply to inquire as to what we actually can accept is testable. That's why I mentioned Socrates as a non-religious example of someone we believe existed and did certain things despite the general lack of testable evidence.

3: Historical evidence is often backed by archeological evidence.

4: But not always and archeological evidence is not testable anyway. Even if it were, we can accept historical truths wihthout it. For instance, we don't have archeological evidence for the existence of Socrates. I then made the off-handed statement that there is general consensus that Socrates existed as well as that Jesus existed. Meaning - we often know historical fact even without archeological evidence - we use source documents, etc. Those are things, like archeological evidence, that cannot be tested and/or observed. I shouldn't have made the off-handed statement about Jesus. Though true, it confused the original issue because Jesus brings up a lot of baggage on the religion boards for obvious reasons. This is where you jumped in.

5: The question of Jesus's existence is different than Socrates because the answer has different significance for both individuals.

6: This is irrelevant. The conclusion is that scientific evidence alone is an inadequate base for knowledge. If I were to concede your argument that Socrates and Jesus are different at the level of importance, then what? What does that do to the argument that scientific knowledge is not enough? It doesn't attack any premise. Nor, does it attack any conclusion.

7: "The historicity of Jesus is an important question that must be resolved before the extraordinary claims about his life, death, resurrection, and nature can be addressed." I agree with this statement. I assume you meant this as a response to the remark about Jesus's resurrection. But I was only using that as a (very poor) example. It wasn't meant as a premise or as a conclusion.

8: "As there are no comparable claims about Socrates, the issue of his existence is far less significant." In what manner? In the manner that I originally made the claim - that history is an example of non-testable truths that we can rationally accept without the requirement of testability - the significance doesn't matter at all.

The premise: There are non-testable claims that a person can make and believe that are wholly rational. For instance, historical claims. I also gave the examples of certain metaphysical claims, logical and mathematical claims, ethical claims, etc.

Conclusion: Testability is inadequate as a sole means of building knowledge.

Your rejoinder: Jesus wasn't real!

[laconicsax]

165. You should pause and reflect on your first numbered point. n/t

[USArmyBJJ]

171. Really? That's what you have to offer?

Well, ok, I guess.

[humblebum]

152. It is relevant because the circumstances are similar. You have framed

the argument to distort that facts. And for you to say, "there's more evidence that Socrates was actually a real person than there is for Jesus. Socrates was at least mentioned by contemporaries" is debatable. The same can be said for Jesus, and we do know that there was a growing movement immediately after his stated time of existence. The bottom line is that the atheist position is as unable to be proven objectively as is the believer's argument.

[laconicsax]

154. I didn't realize that "I don't believe you" constituted a position requiring proof. n/t

[humblebum]

155. It doesn't. I just in so many words stated that. But when you are in the process

of trying to distort the facts relating to someone elses's belief, it needs to be challenged. Socrates was a rebel in his lifetime, who risked his life to expose the hypocracies and fallacies of society in his own time. If he never even existed then a huge part of his influence is nothing more than myth, and so one would have to consider other accounts of that era suspect.

[edhopper]

157. And BTW

this new wrinkle isn't about the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, which in that context is similar to the historical claims of Socrates.
It was the resurrection of Jesus. Which is indeed an extraordinary claim.

[humblebum]

163. It is not generally claimed that the Resurrection can be explained or proven scientifically.

As a matter of fact, it is stressed as an occurrence beyond any physical laws.

[laconicsax]

166. Why should anyone believe that it actually happened?

Let's suppose that the Resurrection did happen and was "an occurrence beyond any physical laws." How would we know that it actually happened?

[humblebum]

168. That is the difference between the thinking processes of the believer

and that of the nonbeliever. The epistemologies (ways of knowing) are different. Logical empiricism, which is a fair description of that used by atheists, does not allow for metaphysical speculation, intuition, or religious belief. In any case, the argument for or against the existence of a diety or the reality of an afterlife is an unwinnable one in terms of objective "proof" that everyone will agree upon.

[trotsky]

170. Ah, I see.

As a limited-thinking non-believer I have this ridiculous insistence on evidence before I believe something.

As a believer, you will simply accept what you are told.

Now it makes sense. Thanks, hb!

[humblebum]

173. You are confirming what I just said. It's not that one accepts evidence and

the other does not. The difference is in what one accepts AS evidence and the other does not.

[trotsky]

174. Yes, I fully understand.

A non-believer needs evidence they can verify.

A believer only needs evidence that someone else told them.

Got it.

[humblebum]

175. No. It's quite clear that you do not understand. But, the point

is that the different ways exist regardless of whether you accept them or not.

[trotsky]

177. No, that's not the point.

The point is that you BELIEVE there are different, magical, non-replicable ways of acquiring knowledge. This belief came from a different, magical, non-replicable way of acquiring knowledge, thus completing the perfect logical circle.

[humblebum]

179. You have made my case and and demonsrated the typical

ways of radical atheism, which are best stated by C. Hitchens: Religion needs to be shown "ridicule, hatred, and contempt...." I'll stick by my statements.

[cleanhippie]

183. For the record...

just because you assert something, does not make it true.

[trotsky]

187. Radical atheism? Naw, just borrowing from Harry Truman.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”

[cleanhippie]

182. What is your evidence that a different way of confirming evidence is evident?

If I have a book that states unicorns exist, is that evidence of their existence? If I am following you correctly, as long as I take it to be evidence, then it is, and so unicorns are real. Is that right?

[USArmyBJJ]

176. Or

A non-believer needs evidence they can verify.

A believer acknowledges that somethings can be "true" even if they are not verifiable. E.g. - "Rape is wrong," can not be empirically verified. "There are other minds than my own," cannot be empirically verified. "The world was not created five minutes ago with the semblance of ancient history," cannot be empirically verified. We simply accept these premises because they make the most logical sense. One can look at the various logical and intuitional "proofs" of God and say that it is more probable than not that some God exists. Those proofs can't be verified, but it isn't necessarily irrational either. One side seems limited to scientific study only. The other side recognizes the role of philosophy in determining truth.

[trotsky]

178. OK, tell me one item of "truth" that has a consensus among philosophers.

I'll wait right here.

[humblebum]

180. "From nothing comes nothing" and "something cannot create itself" are

pretty much accepted by all philosophers. Philosophers have always taken the lead in the skills of reasoning - not the scientists. BUT, there have been scientist/philosophers.

[trotsky]

188. And they don't agree on either of those.

You yourself disagree with both, for instance.

[humblebum]

190. I would challenge you to show me one philosopher who does not, and yes

I do agree with both of those statements.

[trotsky]

194. Nope, you just don't realize you disagree.

Your magical, non-replicable system of acquiring knowledge again.

[humblebum]

203. Um, you are not answering the question and yes, I do agree with both statements

and so does any noted philosopher that I know of. As usual, you follow a very predictable pattern of avoidance when you get hung up on an answer. the two complement each other.

[trotsky]

206. Avoid what now?

Your magical method of knowledge collection that no one else can use to get the same answers as you?

[humblebum]

214. That's what I thought. nt

[trotsky]

217. Yes, with your magical knowledge collection system.

That no one else can use.

Glad we cleared that up!

[USArmyBJJ]

181. I already gave you three

in the original post. There is a general consensus that there are minds other than my own, that the world is more than five minutes old, that rape is wrong, etc. There is also general consensus on the use of logic. Scientists then take that consensus and structure a whole scientific method on its use.

But, I think you're confusing the issue if you are looking for "consensus." A consensus has little bearing on the truth of a matter. Something can be true even if we don't have a consensus about it. Something can even be true if we have a consensus that it is untrue.

What we can do with philosophy is at least come to believe something, so long as it is 1) logical and 2) more probable than not. We can even come to believe this if we can't verify it scientifically. We do this all the time. We can't use science to prove logical truths as logic precedes science and using science to prove it would be arguing in a circle. We simply accept logic as an important and useful tool to trying to determine if something is more probable than not. We can't use science to prove metaphysical truths, as science has to presuppose a strictly material world. We can't use science to prove mathematical truths, because math precedes science as well. There are times when we use epistemologies other than verificationism to come to reasonable answers on important issues. Philosophy, like science, is self-correcting in its constant search for answers.

[trotsky]

185. Nope, none of those are.

Please try again.

[USArmyBJJ]

192. great reasoning!

How can I reply if you don't provide an argument to reply to other than "No"?

[trotsky]

193. When you start providing some arguments of substance

rather than trite old philosophical handwaving, I'll respond in kind. :hi:

[USArmyBJJ]

195. Let's rehash here

You asked where there was consensus:

1) I provided four areas where there was consensus. One of those areas is the area that the entire philosophical and scientific method is based on: the use of logic.

2) I then provided an argument as to why consensus was not the key issue, and gave a general critique of the verificationism you espoused earlier.

You replied: "Nope."

I'm making an argument. You're being embarassingly non-responsive.

[trotsky]

196. Try again.

1) You did not do this, despite your belief that you did.

2) This was also lacking.

You can try again, or you can give up if you want to. Oh, and declare that I'm a closed-minded rationalist or fundie atheist or something really good I haven't heard before.

[USArmyBJJ]

197. Are you sure you're responding to me?

I don't think I've called anyone here or anywhere else a "close-minded rationalist" or a "fundie atheist." I know for sure that I haven't called you the first, because I don't think you're a rationalist. I know that I haven't called you the second because I don't even understand what the phrase means.

It's interesting that you criticized me for "hand waving" earlier, and have thus far failed to provide a single premise and/or conclusion for any statement you've made. You say an argument is lacking or wrong - but provide no justification as to why anyone should believe this. I have a good feeling that you don't have a real argument, and you're trying to save face by giving the semblance of being above the fray. But really, it's ok to admit when you don't know the answer to something, or when you're wrong about something, or when you have a gut feeling that something is wrong but can't exactly explain it. You should try that. You'll be surprised at how easy it is. Otherwise, you could at least attempt to make an argument. That's easy as well.

[trotsky]

199. I do not wish to waste further time with your sidetracks and distractions, that's all.

I recognize the line of argumentation you are trying to advance and have seen it many times, never successful. I do not believe it is worth expending any effort on, and suggested we just cut to the chase where you insult my intelligence for not accepting the world as you see it, which is how these "discussions" generally end.

[USArmyBJJ]

200. Again - are you confusing me with someone else?

I don't think I've criticized your intelligence. I certainly haven't insulted your intelligence for "not accepting the world as <I> see it..." That would be absurd. I've criticized your lack of argumentation, yes. But I can fully accept that someone can take the same set of evidence and/or biases as me, and come to a completely different conclusion as me, and still be an intelligent and thoughtful person. I guess playing the victim is much easier than engaging in debate, but it really isn't as fruitful.

I doubt that you're attempting to mitigate your "wast<ing> of time" as you're still responding to me. But ad hominem doesn't make an argument, and neither do you. While it's interesting to assert that an argument in unsuccessful, in debate we consider it much more interesting to provide an ARGUMENT as to why it's unsuccessful. So far you haven't, and if I'm to take you at your word here, you aren't going to.

[trotsky]

209. Nope, I've read your responses throughout and recognize the pattern.

That's all. You can keep responding to me if you wish, I'm happy to waste your time! :hi:

[USArmyBJJ]

210. Again

You seem to be arguing against a ghost. I never said you were wasting my time. You said I was wasting yours. All I said is that you don't have an argument, that it's obvious you don't, and that it's almost embarassing to watch you attempt to feign some sense of being above the fray (e.g. - You didn't make an argument, you just don't realize it....Ok, Buddha) when it's clear that you just don't have a good response.

[humblebum]

215. He usually and quite predictably starts an avoidance process

whenever he gets in a bind with an argument.

[trotsky]

220. There you go referring to yourself in the third person again. n/t

[cleanhippie]

221. Well, you are the expert on that.

[trotsky]

216. A ghost?

If that's what you think you are. I mean, I certainly have no way of telling. What argument was I advancing, anyway? I was merely telling you that yours was inadequate, AquaBuddha. I am awaiting your good response.

[USArmyBJJ]

218. You just repeated my point

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. Are you going to again waste your time telling me about how you don't want to waste your time? Or, are you just going to concede my points more and more?

I honestly can't tell if you're 1) just being silly (which is what I suspect), or 2) truly confused as to what constitutes an argument. It's clear that you believe my argument to be inadequate. But it isn't at all clear that you have any idea of why it's inadequate. I understand that you're very adept at repeating the following: 1) "your argument is lacking," and 2) "that's not true." It just seems like you don't actually understand what either of those statements mean.

[trotsky]

219. I have conceded nothing, because you have presented nothing.

But before I can give you anything resembling an answer, can you define exactly what you mean by these terms: "consensus," "philosopher," "respond," "argument," "adequate," and "statement."

That should be a good start. Having seen enough folks like yourself who are only interested in equivocation and obfuscation, I just want to get you on record for some definitions first. Thanks so much! :hi:

[USArmyBJJ]

222. At least you're finally saying something

I'll take this in order. Let me know if I miss anything or if you think a definition is inadequate. These are my first thoughts, so I'm open to being wrong and having my mind changed:

1) "Consensus" and "philosopher": You brought these terms up when you asked your initial question. I argued that your question was irrelevant. That argument has gone unanswered. If you want definitions for the terms that you brought up, it is your burden to provide them. Not mine.

2) "Respond": I have a strong suspicion that you aren't serious about this one and this is more of a dodge or an attempt to be cute. Nonetheless, I think a response to an argument is one that attacks either the premises, the conclusion, or the logic behind an argument.

3) "Argument": An argument consists of a premise or set of premises that leads logically to a conclusion. It is the difference between presenting something and presenting nothing, to use your terms.

Example of an argument: P1: If A, then B. P2: A. C1: Therefore, B.

Another example: P1: Verificationism is a good means of determining some probable truths. P2: However, verificationism itself relies on certain assumptions that themselves cannot be verified using the scientific method, e.g. - logical and mathematical assumptions and certain metaphysical assumptions. P3: Additionally, verificationism cannot provide any information as to other potential truths, e.g. - objective moral values, aesthetic judgments, and potential metaphysical and historical realities. C1: Therefore, verificationism is inadequate as a sole means of determining probable truths. C2: Other means of obtaining knowledge are essential to the human search for knowledge.

The following are not examples of adequate arguments: "That's not true." "That's inadequate." "Other people were mean to me." The first two are conclusory statements without premises, and the third is irrelevant whining.

4) "Adequate": An adequate argument consists of a set of premises that lead logically to a conclusion. An adequate response questions either the premise or the logic undergirding the conclusion.

5) "Statement": I suspect this is another attempt at a cute dodge. Nonetheless, it's adequate for now that a statement consists of a declarative statement that is either true or false.

The rest of your post consisted of irrelevant ad hominem. I will evaluate your arguments, should you eventually choose to present any, on the merits. You might want to at least consider extending that courtesy to others.

[trotsky]

223. Now if only you would!

I cannot address your objections until I find out how YOU understand the terms in use. Please define consensus, philosopher, and respond as you wish to use them.

And if you understand a "statement" to be a "statement," how do you define "tautology"?

Thanks! :hi:

[USArmyBJJ]

224. I don't

I don't wish to use either consensus or philosopher, because I consider them irrelevant. You still haven't answered my objection to that. You brought those words up. If you want them defined, feel free to define them. I'm not going to define the terms of your question as that would be unfair to you. You should define your own terms so that you can receive an appropriate response. You're just continuing to flail away in an attempt to dodge. At one point, you just have to take the plunge.

You're right about statement. It was a typo. I meant to say Declarative SENTENCE that is either true or false.

[trotsky]

225. If you consider those terms irrelevant, then define them.

Because you must be using them in some other way. I wish I could say I was dodging, but I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you.

"This statement is false."

Is that sentence true or false?

Is it a statement?

[USArmyBJJ]

226. There's no point

I'm not going to define a term that is, as of now, completely irrelevant. If you want the term to be used, define it, and I will either accept your definition, or seek a clarification, or propose a counter-definition. My argument succeeds without those terms. Yours, apparently, does not. That you would possibly assume that I have the burden of defining terms that YOU wish to use is laughable in its absurdity.

And really? Liar's Paradox? That's where you want to go? You're being disingenuous (not candid or sincere).

[trotsky]

228. I fail to see why you think the term is irrelevant.

You must be using a different definition than the standard one, so that's why I ask for yours. I mean, you outright rejected my post just based on the words, so I'm curious what you think they mean.

You claimed that a statement was (definition) either true or false. Do you retract that claim now?

[USArmyBJJ]

229. To be honest

I can see why these arguments usually end, according to you, with someone questioning your intelligence. I don't necessarily think you're unintelligent, but your weirdly obsessive need to be evasive could easily give one that impression.

Your posts are the equivalent of me saying, "I have a big, red, couch! Ha ha! I refuse to debate you until you define 'big,' 'red,' and 'couch!' In fact, I'm not even going to discuss the relevance of the issue until you define them! Oh, and Liar's Paradox! Panopticon! Schrodinger's Cat!" You could of course define "big," "red," and "couch." You could even engage in the sophomoric philosophical cliches I threw out. But it would be stupid and unnecessary and no one would really expect you to do that.

In the end, I made an argument that your question was irrelevant. You did not respond to that argument, nor did you provide any independent justification for its relevance. Rather, you've taken refuge in the complete absurdity that I have to define every term which you wish to use. You've made no attempt at justifying why it is my duty to make your argument. You've simply repeated your absurdity as if it suddenly changes the fact that you've thus far dropped every argument and refused to make any of your own.

Your posts don't even rise to the level of sophistry. They're stuck firmly in the realm of inanity.

[rug]

232. Lol! After only two days you've grasped the essence of these posts.

"I can see why these arguments usually end, according to you, with someone questioning your intelligence. I don't necessarily think you're unintelligent, but your weirdly obsessive need to be evasive could easily give one that impression."

:rofl:

Welcome to DU!

[trotsky]

238. Naw, it's just you.

Like I said, I've been there, done that. Your tactics here are easily determined, as well as old and worn out. I do not wish to be snared into the semantic games of equivocation and obfuscation. I just wanted to push those tactics right back at you so you could experience them yourself, and as evidenced by your response here, IT WORKED. Woohoo!

But thanks for predictably questioning my intelligence. After all those accusations of ME using ad hom, you pull out the nuke. Nice job! Take care!

[USArmyBJJ]

241. Oh ok....

So your entire debate "strategy" consists of being as absurd as possible and then whining and declaring victory when someone points it out to you? Crazy like a fox! Congratulations! You win the prize...whatever it is!

[trotsky]

242. Just imitating the methods you're using, that's all!

Woohoo!

[cleanhippie]

184. Totally wrong.

We CAN verify that rape is wrong by asking those that have been raped. The consensus is that rape is wrong, therefore it has been verified that rape is wrong.

We CAN verify that the world was not created five minutes ago.

[USArmyBJJ]

189. That's your verification?

We CAN verify that God exists by asking those who believe in him. The consensus is that God exists, therefore it has been verified that God exists. You can see the problem here. All you've "verified" is that there is a consensus that rape is wrong and that people who have been raped think it's wrong. That's the definition of subjectivity. None of this "verification" means that objectively rape is wrong. We simply believe rape is objectively wrong because it is. We can't verify it, at least not in the ridiculous manner that you described, but we can all generally agree that it is. Sometimes we "know" things that we can't verify. We can only use logic and intuition here. Verification is wholly inadequate.

How do we verify that the world was not created five minutes ago with the semblance of age? We look at archeological evidence? Well, that can't be it. We've already stipulated that it was created with the semblance of age. We have to simply accept that this is not true because it's completely improbable. But, we can't "verify" that in any real way because of the nature of the thought problem.

We can say, through logical reasoning and intuition, that some things are more probable than others. It is more probable than not that rape and murder are wrong. It is more probable than not that the earth was not created five minutes ago with the semblance of age. It is more probable than not that there are minds other than my own. I can't verify any of these, but it's not irrational to believe them.

[cleanhippie]

198. Yes, it is.

People that have been raped, as in it ACTUALLY happened to them (and that can also be verified) can verify with little to no deviation, that rape is bad. Is that all that is required for every scenario? Certainly not, but in the case of rape (which you originally used) this is all that is needed.

Our measurement of time is how we define our world. I do not know of another way to date (use time) something without using time. Unless you are asserting that time does not exist, then I really fail to see what you are getting at with this example.

[USArmyBJJ]

231. This is actually the definition of subjective

Rape is not wrong just because people who have been raped believe it is wrong any more than rape would be right if I interviewed some rapists who said it was right. Rape is objectively wrong. Your testability arguments only prove the subjective view that rape is wrong, rather than any objective reason why rape is wrong. Objective moral value can't be measured scientifically. It's beyond the realm of it.

[Jim__]

244. I'm curious about your argument that rape is objectively wrong.

Do you believe that rape is objectively wrong? And based on what you said above (post 189), rape is objectively wrong because we believe it is wrong? If it's based on our belief, then I would call it subjective.

I also have a quibble with your statement that objective moral value can't be measured scientifically. It depends on what you mean by morality. To me, morality is about those acts that increase the probability that a human group will survive. We can't always know what actions will increase the probability of group survival, but there are some strong indicators. In the case of rape, I doubt that we have any surviving groups that accepted in-group rape as moral. At the same time, it does seem like out-group rape did not hurt, and maybe helped, the chance of group surivival - out-group rape still seems to be a fairly common practice among conquering armies - of course, as we come to recognize the strong inter-group ties, even outgroup rape is condemned internationally, and can be punished in international courts.

In general, actions that are commonly practiced across a large number of surviving groups have a strong indication that they are moral acts and allowing violations of such acts appears to put a group at great risk.

[USArmyBJJ]

245. Interesting questions

Mind if I take a day or two to formulate my thoughts on it before responding?

[Jim__]

246. Take your time. I'm just curious. - n/t

[USArmyBJJ]

249. OK, back

So I wanted to just take a few hours and make sure that I understand what I'm saying and that I understand what you're saying! I think I do now, but I might still be off-base. I trust you'll correct me if I am.

First, I just want to clarify the context of my argument. My argument was against what I saw as the implicit assumption by some that verificationism is the only means of proving something or of providing evidence of something. If we can't verify it, we should either not believe it, or at the very least be skeptical of it. My argument was, thus, "Well this just isn't true. We believe all sorts of things without being able to empirically verify them. We're completely rational to believe these things despite being unable to observe them or apply the scientific method to them. For instance, the existence of objective moral values. Most of us believe that 'rape is wrong' is objectively true. We can't verify this in the scientific sense, but we are rational to believe it." I hope that that at least gives us context for what I'm arguing. Now to your points.

In Post 189, I said, "We simply believe rape is wrong because it is." I can see how this might get interpreted as, "Rape is wrong because we all agree that it is wrong," which is indeed subjective morals. What I intended to say was the exact opposite. "We all believe rape is wrong, because rape is wrong." But, rape would be wrong whether we believe it was or not. Rape is objectively wrong. I can't really "verify" that empirically in any way. I can only use my logic and intuition to make an argument that it is.

Now, to your point about testability. This is really where I had to think about it, but I think that the problem is in your assumption that, "it depends on what you mean by morality." I think that if you jump right into defining morality, that you've already missed the boat. At the point of defining "morality" we've already assumed moral truths like - morals exist, morals can be grouped into a system of morality, humans have the ability to act upon those morals, and we should follow morals. None of these are scientifically testable, we just presuppose them (edit: maybe free will is testable, not sure about that, though). This is the essence of my argument against verifiability of morals. Take, for instance, your definition, "morality is about those acts that increase the probability that a human group will survive." This presupposes a host of objective moral values, the most obvious being that human survival is a good thing. I agree that it is, but I'm not sure that you can test that. It isn't like we can observe human extinction and then make an "ought" statement out of it. If we take your definition to heart, we can create a test: We can measure whether a specific action increases our chances of survival. But that would only tell us the "is" of the matter. It can only say, "Action A increases our chance for survival." It can't tell us the "should" of the situation, that "Action A is GOOD because it increases our chance of survival and therefore we should do it," without relying on a host of non-verifiable presuppositions that I listed before.

Does that make sense? Am I still off-base or misunderstanding something? Am I perhaps just wrong?

[Jim__]

250. We disagree, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that one of us is wrong.

The nature of morality is a topic that is not generally agreed upon, and so, I'm not sure either of us can claim to be right.

When you say: But, rape would be wrong whether we believe it was or not. Rape is objectively wrong, I’m not sure what you mean. Are you arguing for a platonic moral standard? I disagree with that argument, but I can understand it. If you’re not arguing for a platonic standard, then what is there that makes rape objectively wrong? What standard are you using? Does this standard cover all moral actions? If you’re using your intuition, isn’t that a subjective standard? If you’re using your logic, then you should be able to make the argument.

I disagree with:

At the point of defining "morality" we've already assumed moral truths like - morals exist, morals can be grouped into a system of morality, humans have the ability to act upon those morals, and we should follow morals.

At the point of defining “morality,” all we’re assuming is that this is a word that we use, and I’m specifying what that word means to me – clearly, the word means different things to different people.

I agree that my definition involves the supposition that human survival is a “good” thing. But, I don’t believe anyone can come up with a definition of morality that doesn’t involve making some assumptions. I’m not sure that assuming that morality addresses the issue of human survival presupposes a host of moral values. As to your claim that: If we take your definition to heart, we can create a test: We can measure whether a specific action increases our chances of survival, I disagree. For instance, is the death penalty moral? Does it increase our probability of survival? My way of answering the first question is to ask the second question. But, there is not definite answer to that question. Other people decide that question based on different criteria than I do; but, everyone uses some criteria.

A lot of morality is visceral. But, I believe that is because people largely act on innate tendencies. Some of those tendencies led to the survival of the group, e.g. in-group rape is bad, and so, surviving people have inherited these feelings. But, environments change, and so, even our visceral feelings can be wrong.

Ultimately, we all decide what basis to use for our personal morality, and we all have to judge specific actions.

[USArmyBJJ]

251. I take your points

I'd like to try and separate where we agree from where we disagree. I'll number things because I think it might make it easier.

1) You ask if I am advocating a Platonic standard. Let me first say, in the sole interest of complete honesty on the topic, that I am a theist and on a personal level I believe in a theistic version of objective morals. That's just the reality of how I "feel" about the subject itself. So, in that sense, I arrive at the conclusion subjectively. But, if we're looking at defining some sort of objective moral value without reference to a God, I think I'm basically advocating moral realism - that moral statements are statements which are true or false independent of how we believe them to be. I'm not sure if this is Platonism or not. I don't think that I know enough about the subject to say whether it is.

2) I have to disagree with your statement that intuition automatically makes the the argument subjective. To me it seems possible for a conclusion to be objectively true, even if the way of coming to that conclusion is subjective. I don't think that humans can really "know" what objective moral truths are - it's just reality that we'll arrive at our conclusions subjectively. That doesn't mean that those truths do not exist, though. I think that philosophy and theology are best equipped to try and come up with answers to those questions, even if we don't ever come to a final conclusion. As a corollary, I do not believe science is a good mechanism for finding an answer.

3) I think you're right that my argument on the use of the word "morality" was in error. Your explanation makes sense to me.

4) You claim that my proposed test of your moral theory is incorrect. I think I can agree with that. However, how does this not really butress the original argument I was making? You concede that your moral definition requires presuppositions. You also seem to agree that any definition of morality would would involve making those assumptions. Isn't this basically an agreement with my argument that testability is not an appropriate standard for debating moral truths? That we have to simply assume certain things and that those assumptions are themselves unverifiable, and thus, verificationism is inadequate to determine moral values? Even if defined morality in the way you prescribe, we could test the "is" of it, but could we really verify the "should" of it? Am I right about this? Or is my thinking too muddled here and I'm missing something? This is where the heart of the matter is for me as the thrust of my argument is against the use of verificationist evidence for moral truth.

5) Where I'd like to seek clarification is whether you're arguing that there are not objective moral values. You say that morality is visceral, but that "even our visceral feelings can be wrong." To me, this implies that you do believe in some sort of objective moral values, but I might be misinterpreting your statement as you also say, "..we all decide on the basis to use for our personal morality, and we all have to judge specific actions." At the same time, I take your last sentence to be more of a realist statement that this is how we act, but not necessarily an endorsement of a subjective view of morality.

You seem to have thought about this issue a lot, so I'd really love to hear your thoughts, particularly on points 4 and 5. As always, I'm open-minded and recognize my own fallibility, so I welcome the exchange.

[Jim__]

252. We do disagree on some points.

On your first point, all I meant by a platonic standard, was that Platonism posits a
realm of ideas where the ideal versions of the things we experience, reside. But, I agree that theism gives us an objective standard of morals. An objective moral standard, of course has an advantage because it can claim that things like rape are objectively wrong. So, I agree that using your standard you can claim that rape is objectively wrong.

When you say that a moral realism should make moral statements true or false independent of our belief, outside of a platonic moral standard, I’m not sure how we can have that. Do you have any suggestions as to how such a moral standard can exist outside of a theistic morality or a platonic morality (I’d consider a platonic morality to be a form of idealism rather than realism)?

On your second point, I agree that intuition could arrive at an objective truth. But, I also agree that we can’t know that we’ve arrived at an objective truth, and to me, that makes it subjective. But, I wouldn’t want to argue that point.

Point 4 and 5 may be where we have the most to discuss. I agree with you that moral truths can’t be established through testing. However, once someone decides on an acceptable basis for morality, he can test whether or not specific actions are in line with that system. For instance, since I believe that morality is a by-product of evolution, and that man survives in groups, then actions that (probably) contribute to group survival are moral. That does lead me to conclude that actions that are condemned across most surviving groups are immoral. That is an empirical test, not an absolute test of the morality of an act, but a strong indication. Since evolutionary advantage changes as the environment changes, the morality of an action can change.

When I said that most morality is visceral, I mean that our moral leanings come to us through inherited emotional tendencies. The thought of someone mistreating the severely disabled, turns our stomach. Yet, under certain dire circumstances in human history, the disabled, even infants, have been abandoned to their fate. So, it’s not that I believe in an objective morality, but a situational morality and that permanent changes in the situation can lead to permanent changes in morality. The visceral gives us a strong indication of what has worked up 'til now, and we are mostly safe in following our gut. However, circumstances can tell us that our gut is wrong, and we need to consider current circumstances.

[USArmyBJJ]

256. Clarifications

1) You asked whether an objective moral standard can exist outside of theism or platonism (thank you for explaining platonism to me, btw). To be honest - I don't see any. I'm not even certain how any atheistic platonism would get us to objective moral values either. I'm certainly open to the possibility and I would need to see what the arguments are, but it seems to me that theism provides the most reasonable explanation of objective moral values. Otherwise, we might just be left with the conclusion that moral values are not objective. Do you have an alternative?

2) To your response to to my points 4 and 5. This is where I'd like clarification because I think there's some complexity here that I am missing. It seems that you're saying either 1) That we can test the morality of an action after the moral truth has already been determined ("...once someone decides on an acceptable basis for morality, he can test whether or not specific actions are in line with that system"), or 2) That testability helps us buttress the other types of evidence that we already use to determine moral truths (i.e. - that we can test to help us determine whether our personal moral experience is true across some sort of group). Either way, it seems that we're left where we started - with the conclusion that testability alone is not a sufficient mechanism of determining moral value. We either can use it only after we've determined moral truth (in the first case), or we can only use it as support for other types of evidence (e.g. - to measure our collective moral experience, in the second case). But, I might be missing the point. Can you clarify?

3) I'm not certain that evolution can really bring us to a moral truth, at least if we assume non-theism. Evolution may make us primarily concerned with human survival. But, that seems arbitrary to me. There's no reason, on a purely naturalistic basis, that I should think that human survival is any more valuable than the survival of ants or mice. It seems that with theism you could get around this by saying that God wanted us to have fundamentally correct moral beliefs and so He guided the evolutionary process in some ways. Even if we're arguing for situational ethics, I'm not sure how we can even get to the idea that the situation matters unless we first determine why it matters and that means we have to attach some sort of morality to human survival. But I don't see why we should attach that morality to it. I think it's implausible to believe that there is any moral property that automatically attaches to us because of evolution.

[skepticscott]

257. And how exactly can an objective moral standard

exist inside theism? Why does belief in the existence of a god or gods provide "the most reasonable explanation of objective moral values" ? Or ANY explanation of objective moral values, for that matter?

[Jim__]

260. I'll give you the best answers I can.

On the first point, I don't think there are objective moral values. However, there are arguments for them. I believe Kant, who was a theist, based his categorical imperative on practical reason - i.e. I believe he had a non-theistic basis for his morality. I don't believe anyone still accepts Kant's arguments on this. Sam Harris has a book out, The Moral Landscape, in which he argues for a scientific basis for morality. I haven't read his book, but I've heard at least some of his arguments and I don't accept them. There is also moral psychology which I believe is, at least in part, an attempt to find out what innate morality there is in humanity.

On your second point, I believe you have to decide what morality means for you. That decision can be based on reason and experience, I'm not sure it can be based on any test. Once you've made that decision, at least some moral statements are testable. Kant's test was:

The concept of the categorical imperative is a syllogism.


The first premise is that a person acts morally if his or her conduct would, without condition, be the "right" conduct for any person in similar circumstances (the "First Maxim").

The second premise is that conduct is "right" if it treats others as ends in themselves and not as means to an end (the "Second Maxim").

The conclusion is that a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances (the "Third Maxim").

more...

In my case, where I think the test is whether or not an act contributes to survival, a strong test is whether most surviving groups prohibit this action. But, most moral dilemmas are not about those types of actions, so the test is whether or not we believe this action contributes to survival.

I'm sure we'll disagree on the third point. To me, evolution is the driver behind our search for truth, and moral truth falls under that umbrella. Evolution has made us survival machines. To go against that is to go against who we are. Arbitrary? No naturalistic reason why our survival is more valuable than the survival of ants or mice? What does your gut say about that? And, while my reason knows that we need ants and mice to survive too, it also tells me that human survival is more important. Why? Consciousness and intelligence for starters.

The cosmic chasm between theists and atheists is the metaphysical gap, the belief in the why of it all. That's why I expect us to disagree about the role of evolution in morality. Given this huge gap in our understanding of the basis for morality, there is, amazingly, little to no difference in our moral behavior. Of course I see that as an argument for a largely physiological basis for behavior. I expect that you see it entirely differently. I don't know that we can cross this chasm in our basic understanding; but, I'm not sure what significance it actually has in how we live our lives.

[USArmyBJJ]

261. Thanks for the explanations!

I'll have to check out Sam Harris' book. I've watched his debates before. While I find him an interesting and intelligent man, I can't say that I found his arguments particularly persuasive. But his book seems interesting.

Your statement, "On your second point, I believe you have to decide what morality means for you. That decision can be based on reason and experience, I'm not sure it can be based on any test. Once you've made that decision, at least some moral statements are testable," is one that I agree with. I certainly think you can decide on some sort of moral system, but only after you've made the decision as to what morality actually means. That makes sense to me. But it still tells me that testability is not sufficient in and of itself for morality. I think we agree on this point.

I understand what you're saying with your evolution argument and why one could argue that this is a sufficient basis for morality. This seems particularly true if, as you said, you don't believe in objective moral values. But I'm not sure it applies in a world where there are objective moral values. Evolution (if you'll mind the quasi-personification and slight oversimplification of it here) is concerned with survival. Of course our gut instinct, honed as it is through evolution, tells us that we are more important than other animals, but if we believe in objective morals, I don't see why that would be a good basis for them. In that case, we really couldn't necessarily trust our gut instinct on the matter, because our gut instinct is inherently biased. But yes, it makes sense to me that if moral values are subjective, survivability might be a good basis for judging a moral action.

I agree 100% with your last paragraph: I don't believe that theists "behave" any better than non-theists. I do not believe that the belief in God gives rise to objective moral values. I believe that the existence of God gives rise to objective moral values. And that truly is, as you say, the metaphysical gap.

[Jim__]

263. Thank you. I enjoyed "talking" to you. - n/t

[skepticscott]

264. So how do you reconcile these two statements?

1. "it seems to me that theism provides the most reasonable explanation of objective moral values."

2. "I do not believe that the belief in God gives rise to objective moral values."

And how exactly does the existence of god give rise to objective moral values? Does the fact that humanity (even Christianity) has never settled on one set of moral values constitute evidence that no god does exist?

[USArmyBJJ]

265. In the interest of clarity

I'll state what the moral argument is, just so we know exactly what we're talking about. The Moral Argument states: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists.

You ask how I can reconcile the two statements above. I thought I clarified that earlier, but there's a good chance I didn't do it very well. The moral argument clearly states that the existence of God gives rise to objective moral values and duties. If this is true, then theism, because it concludes the existence of God, provides the most reasonable explanation of objective moral values. However, it is not the "belief" in God that gives rise to those values, but rather the actual "existence" of God that gives rise to those values. The argument does not make the claim that religious people behave any better than non-religious people. That's irrelevant to the logical conclusion. Does that make sense?

You ask: "And how exactly does the existence of god give rise to objective moral values?"

Why do humans have moral worth? If we posit that there is no God, there's no reason to think that moral values exist objectively. We are one of many species; an accident of nature with no more obligations than any other animal. Female bees kill their daughters, but they don't murder them. A male shark forcibly copulates with a female, but he does not rape her. There's no particular reason that our species should be privileged in the moral order. We could say that we have consciousness or intelligence, but there's no reason I see that that is inherently good and worthy of protecting. We could say that evolution has ingrained in us some sense of moral ideals, but evolution is morally neutral. We are, in essence, a by product of a natural selection that has determined that we are social animal subject to social control of some sort. But there doesn't seem to be anything particular to our species that makes the morality we come up with as a result of that evolution objectively true. That's just speciesism.

With God, we have some sort of entity that exists as a moral lawgiver, who is himself necessarily the standard of goodness by his own nature, and who imposes the values and morals that we must obey. Under theism, God is the moral standard defining good and bad and his commands necessarily reflect his moral nature.

You ask: "Does the fact that humanity (even Christianity) has never settled on one set of moral values constitute evidence that no god does exist?"

Maybe it does. I'd have to hear the argument, though.

If your intimation is that this conclusion logically arises from the Moral Argument, then the answer is clearly, "No." The Moral Argument is a logical argument, "If not P, then not Q. Q. Therefore, P." It's opposite, "If not P, then not Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P," is a logically fallacious argument because it is denying the antecedent. Even if one were to prove that objective moral values and duties do not exist, it would not logically follow from that reasoning that God does not exist. There could be any number of other reasons He does. But, there could be another argument you're meaning that isn't fallacious and that does constitute evidence that no god does exist. I'd just have to hear it and think about it.

I'm obviously not an expert on the argument. But this is how I understand it, and it's how I will attempt a defense of it.

[skepticscott]

266. Apparently the irony

of your opening line escaped you.

But until the existence of your god has actually been demonstrated, this is pretty much all mental masturbation. And even once it has been (not holding my breath there), if you're pointing towards the god of the Bible, this still all falls apart. Since that god is on record as changing his mind about moral standards, and good and bad, his pronouncements can hardly be said to constitute an objective moral standard by any sensible person. On top of which, many of his "commands" are so morally abhorrent (children who curse their parents should be stoned), that even if you're whacked out enough to consider that morality "objective", you can hardly argue that any decent person should abide by it.

[USArmyBJJ]

267. the moral argument

Consists of a set of premises which, if accepted, logically lead to the conclusion. Seeing as how it is a theist argument, a general critique of Christianity simply isn't enough. Nor is it enough to say that the conclusion has to be demonstrated before we accept the premises. Your one liners, while cute and probably persuasive to college freshmen, simply are non-responsive. So far your argumentation has consisted of begging the question, denying the antecedent, ad hominem and non sequitur. I could accept the ad hom if you weren't the personification of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

[humblebum]

268. Spot on. nt

[skepticscott]

234. You have it completely wrong

We don't accept that the world was not created five minutes ago with the semblance of age because it is "completely improbable". Since under that scenario all of our knowledge, experience and memories would have been created 5 minutes ago as well, you have no basis whatsoever to judge probability or likelihood. Intuition is of absolutely no value here.

You really haven't thought as deeply about this as you pretend, have you?

[USArmyBJJ]

235. Do you always presuppose dishonesty by people that disagree with you?

It's very unbecoming. It's more likely that I haven't thought as deeply about this as I believe myself to have, than as I am "pretending" to. In fact, I'd say it's very probable I haven't thought deeply enough about the topic. That's one of the purposes of debate - to refine one's thinking about an issue. That being said - I don't know you. I'm not going to insinuate that your beliefs are dishonest. I will examine your arguments on the merits. You might want to consider skipping the ad hominem and providing the same basic respect to others. You might learn something. We might learn something. Everyone is just better off that way. Just a thought.

That being said, you may be correct that I'm off-base here. You may be right, depending on what you're saying, that either 1) we don't consider that scenario unlikely or 2) we don't consider it unlikely for the reasons I specified. I don't think so, though. The argument is that we consider the scenario itself to be unlikely so that the statement "under that scenario...you have no basis to judge likelihood" is simply begging the question. We consider the scenario itself improbable because there is no logical, empirical, historical, intuitional or really any other kind of evidence that leads us to believe that that scenario is more likely probable than not. What exactly are you arguing here? That we do consider this scenario probable? That we don't consider it probable, but not for the reasons I've provided? Or, was the whole thing just a set up for the nice one-liner at the end?

[skepticscott]

237. Please point out to me

exactly where I accused you of dishonesty, or even implied it. Or where I attacked you personally. I did neither. I told you that your statement was wrong, I told you why, and I questioned your thinking on the topic and your unqualified and unjustified declaration of the truth of your statement in the absence of sufficient consideration.

And NO...we don't "consider the scenario itself improbable because there is no logical, empirical, historical, intuitional or really any other kind of evidence that leads us to believe that that scenario is more likely probable than not." You're really not getting this, are you? If the whole world and everything in it (including our knowledge, memories and experiences) were created 5 minutes ago, logic and intuition are meaningless, as is empiricism. And do you understand how silly it is to refer to "historical" evidence under a scenario where there IS no history?

What I'm arguing is that we have no basis whatsoever for judging whether the "5 minute" scenario or the normal historical reality that we live our day-to-day lives by is more probable. The very nature of the "5 minute" scenario makes it impossible for us to perform any test, observation or experiment that would allow us to judge which is more likely. Ultimately, the reasons we don't live our lives by the 5 minute scenario have nothing to do with its unlikelihood.

[USArmyBJJ]

240. Sorry

I didn't realize that accusing someone of "pretending" to do something which they had not, in fact, done, was anything other than attacking their honesty. I'll accept your clarification.

[skepticscott]

247. And what would YOU call

making unqualified statements like "It is more probable than not that the earth was not created five minutes ago with the semblance of age" as if they were facts, when any real consideration of the issue at all would reveal that they are completely wrong?

[USArmyBJJ]

248. I'd call it an understanding of how not to use circular reasoning

But it isn't important. You responded to a fairly minor point with a mix of fallacious question begging and ad hominem. There comes a point where it's beneath me to debate a random internet guy who non-ironically calls "science" his "hobby." You've reached that point for now.

[skepticscott]

255. Well, since you seem to have no response to

the substantive points I raised in #237 (concerning an issue that YOU thought was important enough to raise several times), and since the best you can do is lob "random internet guy" for an ad hom and put the word science in quotes, yes, I'd say a point has been reached.

And please don't presume that you know me, my thinking, or my "hobby". You don't.

[USArmyBJJ]

172. You can't "know" that it happened

I don't think you can "know" that anything really happened. You can simply say that it is more probable than not that it happened. I imagine when debating the Resurrection, one could formulate an argument that goes more or less like this:

Premise 1: There is a general consensus about certain facts of Jesus's life. Among those are: 1) Jesus was a preacher that advocated radical claims to his divinity and his ability to defeat death, 2) Jesus was crucified and died, 3) Jesus was buried, 4) A group of women found Jesus's tomb empty after burial, 4) several people reported sightings of Jesus after his tomb was found empty.

Premise 2: Resurrection is one explanation of these events.

Premise 3: Other explanations are inadequate.

Therefore, Resurrection is the best explanation of the events and it is more probable than not that Jesus was resurrected.

Obviously, those are some big premises with a lot of room for debate. But I don't see anything illogical about the argument in the sense that if we accept the premises, the conclusion naturally follows.

[cleanhippie]

186. There are much better explanations.

Considering what we know about the world we live in, resurrection is highly unlikely, therefore the better explanation is that it never happened and the whole thing is a mythical story.

[USArmyBJJ]

191. I'm not sure I understand your conclusion

What is the "it" that you say never happened? Are you attacking the first premise and saying that it is unlikely that the historical events mentioned happened? If so, we should hash out the historical evidence for the facts mentioned.

Or are you attacking the second premise that resurrection represents a best explanation of these historical events? If you're going to say that a "better explanation" exists, you might want to give an example of a better explanation.

[cleanhippie]

201. Hmm...

Your first premise is actually four premises, all without verifiability, but for the sake of argument, I will let that stand as it is.

The rest of my post is in response to your second (fifth) premise. Has a resurrection ever been verified? Has it ever happened since the story in the bible? Knowing what we know about the world we live in, human physiology and biology, is the concept of resurrection even a remote possibility? The answer to all of those questions is a big fat "no", therefore it is logical to conclude that (even assuming your first premise (its actually four) is correct, the plausibility of a person being resurrected is infinitesimally small, so small as to make it impossible. If it is impossible, then the more likely explanation for the resurrection story is that it is nothing more than just a fictional story. That is the "it" that never happened.

[laconicsax]

227. You are accepting an empty premise.

Where's your support for the four parts of premise 1? If you answered "the Bible," you need to show that it is a reliable source. The Gospels are hopelessly contradictory and full of impossible and/or incorrect statements. You might as well base an argument on a Glenn Beck conspiracy theory.

Premise 2 isn't a premise, it's a hypothesis. Here's another possible explanation. Someone stole the corpse and superstitious people mistook similar looking individuals for the corpse.

Premise 3 isn't a premise, it's a baseless conclusion. I just provided an adequate explanation that doesn't involve resurrection.

Therefore, your argument is highly flawed and not so much based on logic as wishing.

By the way, the notion that we can't "know that anything really happened" is laughably false. I "know" that I woke up this morning, I "know" what I did between the hours of 5 AM and 1 PM and I "know" what other people did during much of the same time. I "know" what the fifteenth word of your above response is and I "know" what time your response was posted.

I also "know" that the sun came up today, and that it also set on the evening of March 12, 879. By using orbital calculations that I "know" are highly accurate, I can also "know" what position the planets had relative to each other. In fact, I "know" that I can use a computer program to do all the work for me, and I "know" that this is an illustration of this:



Also, you "know" that your username is USArmyBJJ and a whole host of other things.

[USArmyBJJ]

230. I take your points completely

Your question, as I understood it, was how one could know that Jesus was resurrected. I wasn't attempting to argue for the resurrection. I was merely trying to demonstrate that one could, given certain premises, come to the logical conclusion of Resurrection. I didn't expand or provide evidence for either premise because it was beyond the point I was attempting to make. My statement, "I don't think you can actually 'know' anything that happened," was horribly, clumsily stated. What I meant to say is, "I don't think you can actually 'know' anything that happened <at that point in ancient history.>" You're right to call me out on my clumsy wording. I was responding to your question, "How would we know <the Resurrection> actually happened?" Hopefully, my statement makes a bit more sense now, even if you still disagree with it.

Premise 1: As I said, I didn't provide support for the premises, because I was only trying to demonstrate a way of coming to believe the Resurrection, rather than support the actual view that it happened. This thread was about evidentiary claims (what's acceptable, what isn't), so my point was fairly limited. I agree with your statement that you'd have to argue the historical reliability of the Bible, among other things. If you want to do that, then start a thread. If anything, I'd just love to hear the arguments on all sides. I don't want to avoid the debate (although I imagine I couldn't really contribute THAT much to it). It's just that this thread is much more limited to what has evidentiary value, and what conclusion can one come to based on evidence.

Premise 2: I actually don't think premise two rises to the level of hypothesis, because we can't test historical claims (that I'm aware of). It's a premise in the sense that, if one accepts it, it is part of the logical formulation of the argument. One would, of course, have to support it. I didn't do that because my intent was much more limited.

Premise 3: It is a premise. One has to believe that to reach the final conclusion. One would then have to argue whether your alternative scenario is more probable than the resurrection explanation. But a premise doesn't cease to be a premise just because someone argues against it.

Hopefully, my explanation of what my argument was meant to be clears up the confusion. If you want to debate the historicity of the Resurrection, that's fine. It would be interesting. But I don't see that as the point of this thread.

[cleanhippie]

253. Damn laconisax, you sure know a lot!

Well done.

[skepticscott]

167. Stressed as an occurrence

beyond any physical laws...where? By who that would have direct knowledge of it? And exactly what definition of a "physical law" are you using here?

[humblebum]

169. That really doesn't even need an explanation if you read the biblical accounts.nt

[skepticscott]

233. In other words

you have no explanation, no facts, no support, and not even any understanding of the terms you're using.

Call me unsurprised.

[cleanhippie]

254. Oh, Snap!

[humblebum]

258. What's the matter? Did you break a hip? nt

[cleanhippie]

259. Nope, just your infantile rhetoric.

Snap again!

[USArmyBJJ]

136. vague terms

I think everyone is probably taking this slogan way too seriously. It is, like I said, just a slogan. It's meant to provoke thought - not really to be a serious claim. That said, I'm enjoying the debate and figured I'd give it a go. The major problem with the slogan is in the use of ambiguous terms like "extraordinary" and "evidence." What is extraordinary? What type of evidence are we talking about? Only scientific evidence as in a testable hypothesis (as some of the posters seem to believe)? Do logical proofs count? What about other types of evidence (e.g. - historical method evidence)?

I think it's fairly extraordinary to claim to know that there was a man who basically founded the entirety of Western philosophy; that he lived over two millenia ago; and that the only evidence of this are some fictionalized plays made by two or three other people. Nonetheless, I think it's completely rational to believe that Socrates was a real person. Could I be wrong about this? Of course. I can't exactly test and observe it. But it's not irrational to infer his existence based on even the scant evidence we have of it.

I have zero evidence that there are other minds than my own. All of you could be a delusion. But, I doubt that's true. I'm pretty sure you all exist as do I. I can't test this. But I'm rational to believe this along with other non-testable metaphysical truths. Another poster said that "courage" can be tested (as an example of testing metaphysical realities). I'm not sure that works. If you put me in front of a firing squad and I cry like a baby and beg for mercy (which I would), it wouldn't provide evidence one way or the other that courage exists (the metaphysical reality). It would only test if I had the trait that we as a society simply presume to exist (the physical reality). I could be suffering from a lack of creativity here, but I don't see how we test metaphysical truths at all. I could be wrong about all of these metaphysical realities - I might be the only mind in existence, there might not be objective moral values, God might not exist. But I don't see it as irrational just because I do not arrive at the inference via scientific evidence. Maybe it's a pro-philosophy bent, but I think we're limiting human knowledge in an extreme way if we rely on science and science alone to arrive at conclusions - especially, considering that science itself relies on metaphysical truths that it has to simply presume to be True and cannot actually "prove" to be true.

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iolanthe15]

239. Bigfoot

Bigfoot is a legend that has not been revered like Jesus and Allah through the generations . Brain washing has been done in the latter two but in the case of Bigfoot the story has always been told with tongue in cheek . But yes, I agree all three are far fetched !

[Dorian Gray]

243. I think the homeopaths

are all going to go nuts at this ad!

[onager]

262. Repeating myself, but I gotta take a crack at that 'evidence'

Premise 1: There is a general consensus about certain facts of Jesus's life. Among those are: 1) Jesus was a preacher that advocated radical claims to his divinity and his ability to defeat death...

In the context of first-century Judea, there was absolutely nothing "radical" about Jesus or his message. He was just one among many religious crackpots and windbags cluttering up Jerusalem at the time, all claiming to be the Messiah or his close associate. Sort of like Oklahoma today. For some vivid descriptions of the breed, written just a couple of decades later, see The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus.

You want a "radical" messiah? Josephus mentions one of those, who came along just a few years after Alleged Jesus' death, around 37 CE. That messiah was a Samaritan who gathered an anti-Roman mob around their holy mountain, Mt. Gerzim. Pontius Pilate - that fellow depicted in the New Testament as a dithering coward who gave in to mob rule - immediately called out the troops. In short order the rebels were massacred and their messiah was executed.

Premise 2: Resurrection is one explanation of these events.

The resurrection of ANY Formerly Living Person would be a singular event in human history. Xians often seem to forget that by the time Jesus went Tango-Uniform, resurrection was pretty much ho-hum around Judea.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was the fourth person to be resurrected from the dead; after the daughter of Jairus the centurion (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the widow's son (Luke), and Lazarus.

And according to the gospel of Matthew - on the day Jesus was crucified, practically the whole dead population of Jerusalem got out of their tombs and walked around, chatting with the locals and generally taking a day off from the tedium of the afterlife. No one else, in or out of the gospels, mentions that interesting little event. I wonder why.

Oh, I know! Because Xers have explained it to me many times. It was a long time ago and there was no mass media to tell the story and Jerusalem was just a dinky little Middle Eastern backwater and almost everybody was illiterate, etc etc.

Er...except that Jerusalem was a major provincial city of the Roman Empire and a major regional commercial center. It was the religious heart of the Jewish nation. To ensure good communication with the wider world, the region was served by a deep-water port constructed by Herod The Great at Caeserea. It also had a large literate population, from Roman clerks to merchants to Jewish scribes.

Oh, and around 59 BCE, Julius Caesar had already founded the first daily newspaper, the Acta Diurna, delivered around the empire by special couriers. One of its purposes was to keep the Emperor informed about doings around the empire. Which presumably would have included an army of zombies wandering around Jerusalem.