Author Topic: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie  (Read 5852 times)

jdawg70, xyzzy and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7759
  • Darwins +1027/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #435 on: Today at 09:47:43 AM »
BibleStudent, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is Bayes' Theorem.  Yet you have repeatedly ignored my telling you this and continued to maintain the contradictory position that you can challenge a specific phrasing of Bayes' Theorem as a "highly subjective claim" while simultaneously claiming that you are not intending to challenge Bayes' Theorem.  So I want a straight, yes/no answer here.  Do you understand that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an English restatement of Bayes' Theorem?
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4102
  • Darwins +412/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #436 on: Today at 10:22:06 AM »
I don't think that this problem has much to do with statistics, or can be settled this way.

Also, BS asking for what kind of evidence that we would require is fairly typical deflection, for Christians not having anything terribly convincing. If they had convincing evidence, we would be convinced, and would not require peer brainwashing, and fear campaigns to maintain belief in the general population. "God" has only provided some books that have no provenance, and no details about the authors. The only arguments that Christians seem to have, is that nobody would be devoted to falsehoods, with the fanaticism, of jee, I don't know, Muslims, Mormons, or Heaven's Gate.

The null hypothesis, is: Can we find a way to construct the Christian lie, in a convincing way, without debunking too much history? The problem is complicated by us not knowing how much history has been forged by Christians. The devotion of early Christians may all be fake, and Eusebius' work about church history may all be fake. We have no reference point, to know how devious the early church was. But I believe we can still construct how Christianity was made, assuming a lot of the church history is correct.

It is reasonable to assume that Christians could have forged a lot of history, because the victor writes history, and orthodox Christianity was the victor. One only need imagine what the Nazis would have said about the holocaust, had they won the war, to appreciate how much control the victor has over fabricating history. If Christians were in control of all the libraries of the ancient world, the fanatics would have burned every "heresy", and the other fanatics would have propagated every concordant text. (The same way that ISIS fucked up the Mosul museum.)

BS's proof should be to demonstrate that early Christians did not erase or fabricate texts, the same way every other sect would. Also, to furnish the lost provenance evidence for the gospels and epistles. I don't believe this is possible, given the way Bible historians entertain every permutation of theory.


« Last Edit: Today at 10:34:49 AM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2511
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #437 on: Today at 10:31:04 AM »
BibleStudent, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is Bayes' Theorem.  Yet you have repeatedly ignored my telling you this and continued to maintain the contradictory position that you can challenge a specific phrasing of Bayes' Theorem as a "highly subjective claim" while simultaneously claiming that you are not intending to challenge Bayes' Theorem.  So I want a straight, yes/no answer here.  Do you understand that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an English restatement of Bayes' Theorem?

Yes.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7759
  • Darwins +1027/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #438 on: Today at 10:42:11 AM »
Thank you.

EDIT:  Just to make it clear, that concludes my moderator involvement in this thread.
« Last Edit: Today at 11:15:12 AM by jaimehlers »
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13827
  • Darwins +444/-39
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #439 on: Today at 11:03:37 AM »
I am not aware of any means for teleportation. If such a means exists, I have no knowledge of it.

Are you saying that your (or my) state of knowledge is relevant?

I happen to agree.  That, and only that, is the sense in which Bayes Theorem is subjective - it's employed by people, who may or may not know things.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2511
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #440 on: Today at 12:00:25 PM »
Correct.

So...I guess, I don't at all understand your hold up with the statement 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.  You appear to readily accept it, yet are pressing for proof of it?

It's very odd, BibleStudent.

I fail to see how ECREE provides any benefit to conflict resolution or problem solving. In other words, what does it really accomplish? It certainly sounds commonsense and most people would probably recognize the simplicity of it but when you boil it down, it’s an unnecessary argument. A claim requires evidence, whether it is an “extraordinary claim” or not. In a sense, adding the word “extraordinary” poisons the well and can lead to a lot of goalpost moving. Furthermore, the claim ECREE contains an equivocation which suggests that it would make more sense to simply say “extraordinary claims require evidence”…or….”claims require evidence”....(although I still have reservations about including the word “extraordinary” in the first option).

Using ECREE as some sort of retort to qualify the level of the “God exists” claim adds an unnecessary qualifier that creates tension and serves no real benefit.

To sum up, maybe if you can explain why it is necessary to categorize the teleportation of Bob Smith as an extraordinary claim rather just a claim, it will give me something more to consider.

Online jdawg70

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4226
  • Darwins +956/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #441 on: Today at 12:36:53 PM »
I fail to see how ECREE provides any benefit to conflict resolution or problem solving. In other words, what does it really accomplish? It certainly sounds commonsense and most people would probably recognize the simplicity of it but when you boil it down, it’s an unnecessary argument. A claim requires evidence, whether it is an “extraordinary claim” or not. In a sense, adding the word “extraordinary” poisons the well and can lead to a lot of goalpost moving.
I see this as the problem.  Declaration of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not goalpost moving, but letting you (the claimant) know where the goalpost is.

Quote
Furthermore, the claim ECREE contains an equivocation which suggests that it would make more sense to simply say “extraordinary claims require evidence”…or….”claims require evidence”....(although I still have reservations about including the word “extraordinary” in the first option).
Do you honestly not see the merit in communicating what one feels the preponderance of evidence ought to be?

Do you know the reason why we don't ever really say "trivial claims require trivial evidence?"  It's not because it's not true.  It's just that it has no utility.  But there is utility with the extraordinary variant; namely, to let those in the discussion know that at least person finds a claim to be rather extraordinary and that a higher threshold of evidence needs to be reached for acceptance of that claim.

Quote
Using ECREE as some sort of retort to qualify the level of the “God exists” claim adds an unnecessary qualifier that creates tension and serves no real benefit.
But it's a valid retort that certainly serves a real benefit: to let the person who is providing the evidence know that the person evaluating the evidence has found it wanting.  To let you know that I find the claim "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity with a vested interest in human affairs" to be an extraordinary claim.  That it is a claim that requires more evidence or better evidence than what I would expect of a claim "there exists a 5'6" tall white man in Nebraska." <-- that, to me, would constitute an ordinary claim, and my bar for acceptance of that claim is quite a bit lower than the requisite extraordinary of "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity with a vested interest in human affairs."

Such a retort is made to let people like you know that "a warm fuzzy feeling" is grossly insufficient to establish the existence of god.  That "an old book full of words" is grossly insufficient to establish the existence of god.

The claim of "person resurrected from the dead," to me, is quite extraordinary.  Like teleportation, I am completely and utterly unaware of resurrection of the dead, certainly in terms of human beings.  So "an old book full of words" is grossly insufficient to establish that a person rose from the dead.  There needs to be a lot more evidence than that, and that evidence needs to be scrutinized more, due to the extraordinary nature of the claim.  What you need to understand is that the retort is letting you know that the evidence you're providing (which, as I understand it in this thread, is "old book full of words" and "argument assuming the involvement of an unestablished deity of unlimited power and a desire to make manifest the claim we are discussing"). <---- that is insufficient, and continuing to let you know that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is to let you know that you have as of yet provided evidence that is anything remotely close to extraordinary.

The problem I see is that you seem to mistake that for "atheists not genuinely interested in the answer."

Quote
To sum up, maybe if you can explain why it is necessary to categorize the teleportation of Bob Smith as an extraordinary claim rather just a claim, it will give me something more to consider.
Because someone says that "because George told me Bob teleported into the bank" is sufficient to accept the claim "Bob Smith teleported into the bank" as true, and they use the truth of Bob Smith's teleportation into the bank as further evidence of other claims.  It's helpful (not necessary) to try to convince that person that "Bob Smith teleported into the bank" is an extraordinary claim so that they don't just willy-nilly accept any random bullshit as true and extrapolate other aspects of reality based on that bullshit.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2662
  • Darwins +298/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Does God exist? And was Jesus Resurrected? - For Charlie
« Reply #442 on: Today at 01:25:04 PM »
Do you understand that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an English restatement of Bayes' Theorem?

Yes.

Really?

I fail to see how ECREE provides any benefit to conflict resolution or problem solving. In other words, what does it really accomplish?

Clear thinking.

Quote
It certainly sounds commonsense and most people would probably recognize the simplicity of it but when you boil it down, it’s an unnecessary argument.


Only if clear thinking is unnecessary.

Quote
A claim requires evidence, whether it is an “extraordinary claim” or not.


An extraordinary claim requires better evidence to avoid fooling yourself.

Quote
In a sense, adding the word “extraordinary” poisons the well and can lead to a lot of goalpost moving.

No, it tells you that you need to protect yourself against false claims.

Quote
Furthermore, the claim ECREE contains an equivocation which suggests that it would make more sense to simply say “extraordinary claims require evidence”…or….”claims require evidence”....(although I still have reservations about including the word “extraordinary” in the first option).

No, the word extraordinary is there because of Bayes Theorem and it is an important warning to avoid fooling yourself.

Quote
Using ECREE as some sort of retort to qualify the level of the “God exists” claim adds an unnecessary qualifier that creates tension and serves no real benefit.

NO, it is important to know that the claim that the Christian God exists or another god exists is an extraordinary claim in order to avoid fooling yourself with trivial evidence such as coincidences in daily life which happen all the time.

Quote
To sum up, maybe if you can explain why it is necessary to categorize the teleportation of Bob Smith as an extraordinary claim rather just a claim, it will give me something more to consider.

That should be obvious by now.

But here is one reason why it is an extraordinary claim when you say your god exists. It is because when someone claims that their god exists and their god disagrees with your god, you know they are making a false claim and you know there are billions of false claims about many gods. The other person also knows that you are making a false claim about your god and the other person also knows that there are billions of false claims about many gods. Everyone knows that other people invent gods in their own image.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V