Resha Caner
Expert Fool
We do not agree. I don't see how you can read my post and conclude this. But I hope you're having a good Christmas.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think we could be speaking past one anotherI already responded to this earlier. We could begin a several response exchange to lay the ground work for what IS considered 'extraordinary evidence'. However, in this case, it is not necessary. We both agree a man rising from the dead, after 3 days of being dead, warrants 'more evidence', 'extraordinary evidence', 'other'...
So evidence required is equal regardless of the nature of the claims made?We do not agree. I don't see how you can read my post and conclude this. But I hope you're having a good Christmas.
So evidence required is equal regardless of the nature of the claims made?
Me claiming there was a leprechaun in my backyard and claiming there was a peacock in my backyard are pretty different claims even if one aspect is the same. I can corroborate with others and investigate in regards to the peacock, but the leprechaun is seemingly just me being delusional (if I actually believed it, but no one else could remotely corroborate the claims or even likelihood)
Give me an example where it would be different. Not an example of claims you consider extraordinary, but of evidence you consider extraordinary. Why is it so hard to understand what I'm saying?
For example, it may have been an extraordinary feat the first time a man went to the moon, but dirt from the moon is dirt just as dirt from the earth is dirt. The nature of the evidence is the same. Photos of the moon are the same type of evidence as photos of the earth. And there are people who reject both. There are people who believe photos of the moon were faked, and there are people who believe photos of the earth from space were faked. There isn't something extraordinary about dirt from the moon or photos of the moon that make them more believable than dirt from the earth or photos of the earth.
Confirmation bias works both ways my friend, both in favor and against an idea, and that seems to be your issue here. Since you already believe peacocks exist, you're biased in favor of believing they're walking around in your backyard. Because you believe leprechauns don't exist, you're biased against believing they're walking around in your backyard. So you're trying to use that confirmation bias (hoping I share the same confirmation bias) to bolster your example.
But the issue is not what exists. Rather, it is whether you're delusional about what's in your backyard - something easily remedied by simply going there. Delusion is not an explanation. If you have a history of delusion, it is just as likely to make you mislabel a leprechaun and call it a peacock as it is to make you see leprechauns that aren't there. Because the issue is your delusion and not what exists, the evidence required is the same for both peacocks and leprechauns. Show me.
FYI, your exclusionary view is nothing new and not restricted to spiritual issues. It was something pointed out by Ernst Mach in his discussions on science.
Regardless, you believe in extraordinary evidence. OK. Show me what that is. Not the claim. The evidence.
Agreed. You're not … yet.I'm not the one making extraordinary claims …
... I'm also not the one that's determining extraordinary evidence.
It would probably, if pushed to answer, be something overwhelmingly conclusive, not merely something that fits with a plausibility argument.
The nature of the evidence is not the same, they're merely both dirt, but one is composed of stuff that would likely only be on the moon or have a different composition in general.
Leprechauns are far more compelling as something that could exist to me with conclusive evidence than God, because God is utterly transcendent and contradictory, fairies are preternatural.
What basis do you have for concluding God exists beyond your fallacious inferences about agency that aren't shared by others?
If you're just going to play burden tennis, methinks we're done here, because you're not willing to admit the folly of a position that is convinced of something because of mere plausibility and not anything remotely reliable (since we don't have ANY other accounts of Jesus apart from the Gospels that aren't suspect in even referring to him precisely rather than vaguely)
Agreed. You're not … yet.
You're not? Then why did you ask the question (So evidence required is equal regardless of the nature of the claims made?)? If you agree with me about evidence, the question doesn't seem necessary.
A little vague, but I appreciate the attempt so let me suggest something. Feel free to accept or reject the clarification. Are you referring to confidence levels? In my engineering work we typically establish something like a 95% confidence level - a specific probability that can be measured. Is that what you mean?
If so, I've never had someone say, "I know we typically ask for 95% confidence, but this is an extraordinary idea, so I'm going to demand 99% confidence." It just doesn't happen, so I don't get it. Why would you accept 95% for peacocks, but demand 99% for leprechauns? I'd be happy with 95% for both cases.
I didn't say they would be the same. I said neither is extraordinary, but the evidence is of the same nature: dirt from respective locations. If it's likely to find that composition on the moon, then it's not extraordinary to find that composition on the moon. You got what you expected.
How did you come to know the nature of God and leprechauns? Very curious that you're so certain of such things.
You know my experiences are fallacious even though I haven't told you what they are? Wow. That's … clairvoyant.
I was trying to clear all the baggage people bring to these conversations - judgmental leaps that muddy the water before you even know my position. I've not yet encountered a non-Christian in this forum who will pause for a moment to listen. Rather they seem all too anxious to rush in and rattle off why they're going to dismiss me before I've even said anything.
I thought you might be different, but if I was wrong, then, yeah, best to end it now.
Or, if what you're really after is someone to listen to what you believe (rather than what you don't believe), I'm willing to do that too. But if neither of those … OK.
I clearly don't agree with you on what constitutes evidence or I'd believe the resurrection happened, which I don't: thought that was clear
Jesus' coming back is not the same as me nearly dying if my heart stops and then coming back with a defibrilator, he was supposedly completely dead, which we've NEVER seen happen and it be a reliable account.
It wasn't, though I understand you don't accept the Resurrection. From the beginning I have indicated an awareness that different people are convinced by different types of evidence. I allow that because it's actually happened. Not all Christians who accept the Resurrection accept it for the same reason I do. I have no expectation you would accept it for the same reasons I do. But that doesn't make any of those reasons extraordinary evidence. It simply makes them different.
If, however, you are going to demand extraordinary evidence of me, then you need to define what that means.
Apparently you haven't seen all my posts in this thread, because we do have documentation of such things. There are cases of a person being declared legally dead, and then autoresuscitation (reviving without medical assistance) after that. If your standard of "completely dead" is different than a legal, clinical declaration of death by a credentialed doctor, then, um … I dunno ...
FYI, the documented record for reviving after clinical death is 17 hours.
[edit] Sorry. I forgot that you asked for the evidence that convinced me. As I said earlier, it wasn't "evidence" that convinced me, but experience. All the evidence I've seen given for the Resurrection came after I already believed in God. That's a lengthy discussion in and of itself.
Extraordinary evidence would be that which is consistent with the claim in an objective manner rather than selectively interpreting or otherwise being convinced by something merely being plausible rather than possible and actual.
Then you've practically admitted it's all post hoc rationalization to fit your belief in God after the fact rather than actually being convinced in a remotely objective fashion.
Nice words that don't mean anything. If you're intent on changing my mind, I think you'll need to provide an example - an example that utilizes quantifiable data in a scientific sense.
I've admitted no such thing, but if you want to leap to that conclusion, it will make the conversation shorter. I'd hate to provide further explanation if you've already decided that's the outcome, so I appreciate you cutting this short. Maybe we should just focus on one thread.
If you were already convinced of God's existence, then how is it a stretch to believe in other miraculous things if they're connected to the God you're already convinced exists? It's an easy gradation, but still, it means your standards could be argued to already be low as to what counts as evidence for believing in things, particularly as regards the supernatural
If you qualified why you believed in God in the first place, we can then establish more accurately what your evidential standards are for these supernatural claims versus seemingly anything else (assuming, maybe, you believe in the earth being round, orbiting the sun, evolutionary theory, etc)You don't know what would be a stretch for me or what my standards are since you don't yet know anything substantial about what I believe. I have no idea how you would argue anything. Signing out. It's best we focus on the other thread.
We do not agree. I don't see how you can read my post and conclude this. But I hope you're having a good Christmas.
As I've told others here, to entertain the idea that this claim was 'for real', would at least necessitate the need for multiple contemporaneous corroborated extra-biblical sources reporting of a being demonstrating return from His own death. We do not seem to have as such? Hence, seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claim. If not, then please explain why?
I don't understand this focus on extra-biblical sources. Do you really think anyone who actually witnessed the Resurrection would just carry on, business as usual, go back to their normal lives and not join the new movement? For a claim like this, I don't know where you think unbiased corroborating reports are going to come from
I disagree. I trust you agree there exists no true standard for evidence, right? He could produce His evidence to many, and some may not still believe. However, If God really wanted to demonstrate His glory, seems as though He might have at least done so globally. Regions across the globe, whether they believed the claim or not, would still report what they saw or witnessed. (i.e.) I have the ability to write, live in America, and report 'seeing a strange object in the sky.' Someone in China reports the same thing.
Other cultures would write or report of seeing a 'magical man' claiming to be a Messiah, but 'not believe He actually was.'
This is what would create pause for me, or raise an eye-brow. --- Seeing reports of an alleged event from a global stance. But instead, He chose to provide demonstration of His powers the way He did?
I disagree. I trust you agree there exists no true standard for evidence, right? He could produce His evidence to many, and some may not still believe. However, If God really wanted to demonstrate His glory, seems as though He might have at least done so globally. Regions across the globe, whether they believed the claim or not, would still report what they saw or witnessed. (i.e.) I have the ability to write, live in America, and report 'seeing a strange object in the sky.' Someone in China reports the same thing.
Other cultures would write or report of seeing a 'magical man' claiming to be a Messiah, but 'not believe He actually was.'
This is what would create pause for me, or raise an eye-brow. --- Seeing reports of an alleged event from a global stance. But instead, He chose to provide demonstration of His powers the way He did?
This seems like a separate concern than saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, though. You're taking issue with the revelation itself as not being universal enough, not with the evidence presented for the event. That's more a theological question than an evidentiary one.
Ummmm...we have many millions of people (extra-biblical folks) who have personally corroborated the resurrection story...all across the globe...over a couple thousand years.
I'd agree with that, yes.I again ask, do you agree that there exists no true standard for evidence? I trust this is actually a compulsory question
Do you find the method, in which God used, sufficiently extraordinary? If so, as I've asked others, what evidence makes the claims of His alleged resurrection compelling?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?