Not a sin anymore???

[leroy]

No.

Already answered in detail.

I take the blame, maybe I am bad in understanding stuff.

But it seems to me that your view is that testimonies are evidence except when the claim is “fantastical”

If this is not your view then care to correct it and explain it?

extraordinary
adjective

ex·traor·di·nary | \ ik-ˈstrȯr-də-ˌner-ē , ˌek-strə-ˈȯr- \
Definition of extraordinary


1a: going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary; extraordinary powers
b: exceptional to a very marked extent; extraordinary beauty
Definition of EXTRAORDINARY

A person dying and coming back to life after three days goes well beyond what is considered usual or normal, given what we know about the natural world.

An ordinary claim:
I have a dog.

An extraordinary claim:
My dog can fly.

Yes given that definition the resurrection would be an extraordinary event, // but it wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence (if that even means something)

An extraordinary claim:
My dog can fly.

Sure, but one doesn’t need “extraordinary” evidence, at least not in the sense that you are using the word, if I make an ordinary observation of your dog flying would be enough to convince me that the proposition is true

 

[leroy]

No, they come from primary source material.]

So what? They are still based on testimonies

The authors and the compilers of the Bible all had agendas. Try actually reading the links I provided as to how they picked and chose what books to include and which to omit and you'll see how silly this comment of yours is.

Irrelevant, that is called a red herring fallacy , even if I grant the ridiculous conspiracy theory that you are trying to suggest that doesn’t change the fact that

1 Paul and the authors of the gospels reported the same event independently

2 historians consider multiple independent testimonies as a reliable way for determining the historicity of an event

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what? They are still based on testimonies

No, they are not. They are based on primary source documents.

I have no idea why you think such documents are anywhere in the ballpark of being the same thing as your hearsay you keep citing from the Bible.

Irrelevant, that is called a red herring fallacy , even if I grant the ridiculous conspiracy theory that you are trying to suggest that doesn’t change the fact that

No, it isn't.
And it doesn't require any conspiracy whatsoever. Just a basic understanding of human nature. People who are meeting with an agenda in mind are people who have an agenda.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

1 Paul and the authors of the gospels reported the same event independently

Nope. Both sources are ... The Bible!

2 historians consider multiple independent testimonies as a reliable way for determining the historicity of an event

No. There is much, much more to it than that.

You haven't read a single link I've provided to you so far, but maybe you'll read through this:

How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net

 

[SkepticThinker]

I take the blame, maybe I am bad in understanding stuff.

But it seems to me that your view is that testimonies are evidence except when the claim is “fantastical”

If this is not your view then care to correct it and explain it?

I've explained in great detail already.

Yes given that definition the resurrection would be an extraordinary event, // but it wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence (if that even means something)

Sure, but one doesn’t need “extraordinary” evidence, at least not in the sense that you are using the word, if I make an ordinary observation of your dog flying would be enough to convince me that the proposition is true

You don't think seeing a dog fly would be extraordinary?


Would you need to see that for yourself, or would you just take someone's word for it that their dog can fly? Do you think the claim "my dog can fly" is a mundane one?

I think I’m going to give up now because you just keep repeating the same thing over and over as though we haven’t been through it already. Round and round in circles is not where I wish to go.


You have a low standard of evidence. If you’re happy with that, so be it, I guess. I want to believe in as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible, so my standard of evidence is a bit higher.

 

[leroy]

No, they are not. They are based on primary source documents.

Again primary source documents are testimonies, (Paul is also a primary source)


Do you accept testimonies as evidence yes or no? when would a testimony count as evidence according to you?

I have no idea why you think such documents are anywhere in the ballpark of being the same thing as your hearsay you keep citing from the Bible.

You arbitrary decided the bible is based on hearsay.

No, it isn't.
And it doesn't require any conspiracy whatsoever. Just a basic understanding of human nature. People who are meeting with an agenda in mind are people who have an agenda.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

Again it is irrelevant, we are not discussing the accuracy of the canon of the bible,

We are discussing the claim that Paul and the gospels are independent in the sense that they reported the same events without copying form each other

Nope. Both sources are ... The Bible!

Again so what? The fact is that Paul and the authors of the gospels reported the same event without copying form each other, nor from a common source.

Please ether refute or grant this fact

No. There is much, much more to it than that.

You haven't read a single link I've provided to you so far, but maybe you'll read through this:

How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net

Your source affirms what I said…………..multiple independent attestation makes an event more likely to be true

"

1. Multiple independent attestation: The more independent witnesses we have to an event, the greater the likelihood that it happened. The difficulty with this one is that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether ancient witnesses are truly independent of each other, because we often don’t know where they obtained their information. So the earlier the attestation, the better."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again primary source documents are testimonies, (Paul is also a primary source)

You mean, the guy who claims to have seen Ghost Jesus? Should we take that claim at face value?

Do you accept testimonies as evidence yes or no? when would a testimony count as evidence according to you?

I have no idea why or how you could still be asking me this at this point.

You arbitrary decided the bible is based on hearsay.

I didn't say the "Bible is based on hearsay." I'm saying that many of the supposed "eyewitness testimonies" aren't eyewitness at all. And not only that, there is a lot more to determining the facts of history than just believing anything anybody wrote down at face value.

Again it is irrelevant, we are not discussing the accuracy of the canon of the bible,

We are discussing the claim that Paul and the gospels are independent in the sense that they reported the same events without copying form each other

It's not anywhere close to irrelevant. See below. It's extremely relevant to historians.

Again so what? The fact is that Paul and the authors of the gospels reported the same event without copying form each other, nor from a common source.

Please ether refute or grant this fact

Then they aren't independent. They are from the same book. A book that was compiled by people with an agenda.

Good grief we're just going round and round in circles.

For confirmation you'd need an extra-Biblical source.

Your source affirms what I said…………..multiple independent attestation makes an event more likely to be true

"

1. Multiple independent attestation: The more independent witnesses we have to an event, the greater the likelihood that it happened. The difficulty with this one is that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether ancient witnesses are truly independent of each other, because we often don’t know where they obtained their information. So the earlier the attestation, the better."

I guess you didn't notice that there are 3 more points underneath that one. And would you look at that, number 4 deals with the writers' agenda.

 

[leroy]

I've explained in great detail already.]

No, you haven’t

Do you accept (at least sometimes) testimonies as evidence?

Yes or no?

You don't think seeing a dog fly would be extraordinary?


Would you need to see that for yourself, or would you just take someone's word for it that their dog can fly? Do you think the claim "my dog can fly" is a mundane one?

Given that there are many good reasons to assume that flying dogs don’t exist , the existence of these creatures is very unlikely.

Therefore I would need very strong evidence to trump this intrinsic improbability

Is this what you mean by extra ordinary?

What is the point that you are trying to make?

You have a low standard of evidence. If you’re happy with that, so be it, I guess. I want to believe in as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible, so my standard of evidence is a bit higher.

It´s the same standard than yours

You believe that there was a “Council of Nicaea” despite the fact that all you have is testimonies as evidence for such an event ... so in this case, you do accept testimonies as evidence

The problem is that “evidence” for you is dependent on weather if something contradicts your current view or not

 

[leroy]

You mean, the guy who claims to have seen Ghost Jesus? Should we take that claim at face value?



I have no idea why or how you could still be asking me this at this point.


I didn't say the "Bible is based on hearsay." I'm saying that many of the supposed "eyewitness testimonies" aren't eyewitness at all. And not only that, there is a lot more to determining the facts of history than just believing anything anybody wrote down at face value.


It's not anywhere close to irrelevant. See below. It's extremely relevant to historians.


Then they aren't independent. They are from the same book. A book that was compiled by people with an agenda.

Good grief we're just going round and round in circles.

For confirmation you'd need an extra-Biblical source.

This is boring and tedious

I am only making 3 relevant claims, please tell me explicitly which claim do you deny?

1 Paul and the authors of the gospels reported the same event

2 They didn’t copied from each other, nor from a common source

3 the combination of the 2 points above constitute strong evidence for the historicity of that event _(as your own source explains)

I guess you didn't notice that there are 3 more points underneath that one. And would you look at that, number 4 deals with the writers' agenda.

You are just sending random shots,

Please be specific

1 exactly what agenda did paul and the authors of the gospels had?

2 how do you know that they had that agenda?

3 How do you know that they where willing to lie, just to promote that agenda?



And you are still ignoring my argument agaisn your “agenda” non-sense

Even if we grant that they had an agenda, and that the authors where willing to lie, in order to it remains inexplicable why is it that they all invented the exact same lie

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you haven’t

Do you accept (at least sometimes) testimonies as evidence?

Yes or no?

On their own, with no further corroborating evidence, no. If the claim is an extraordinary one, definitely not, unless there is corroborating evidence
I've answered this several times now.

Given that there are many good reasons to assume that flying dogs don’t exist , the existence of these creatures is very unlikely.

Therefore I would need very strong evidence to trump this intrinsic improbability

Is this what you mean by extra ordinary?

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Yes, there are many good reasons to question claims about a dog flying because such a claim is very out of the ordinary.
Just like your resurrection claims. Are you getting it now?

It´s the same standard than yours

No, it isn't. I've explained this in detail as well.

You believe that there was a “Council of Nicaea” despite the fact that all you have is testimonies as evidence for such an event ... so in this case, you do accept testimonies as evidence[/quote]
We have primary sources for the event(s). There were decrees, canons and edicts issued by the council elders that we can look at.

The problem is that “evidence” for you is dependent on weather if something contradicts your current view or not[/QUOTE]
I have no idea why you keep saying this but it's bogus. You seemed to be getting it a little further up in the post but then here we are all over again.

Your standard of evidence doesn't even hold up in a court of law. Oh right, you ignored all the problems with "eyewitness testimony" in that context too.

I'm done now. You're just asking me the same questions over and over in an endless loop and you don't appear to have taken in anything I've said. You haven't read a single link I've provided.
This is going no where.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is boring and tedious

I am only making 3 relevant claims, please tell me explicitly which claim do you deny?

1 Paul and the authors of the gospels reported the same event

2 They didn’t copied from each other, nor from a common source

3 the combination of the 2 points above constitute strong evidence for the historicity of that event _(as your own source explains)




You are just sending random shots,

Please be specific

1 exactly what agenda did paul and the authors of the gospels had?

2 how do you know that they had that agenda?

3 How do you know that they where willing to lie, just to promote that agenda?



And you are still ignoring my argument agaisn your “agenda” non-sense

Even if we grant that they had an agenda, and that the authors where willing to lie, in order to it remains inexplicable why is it that they all invented the exact same lie

Yep, extremely boring and tedious.
Maybe quit repeating yourself.
I'm out.

 

[leroy]

Yep, extremely boring and tedious.
Maybe quit repeating yourself.
I'm out.

You know that these 3 points are true, but you don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit it, ptherwise you would have refute them long ago

 

[leroy]

On their own, with no further corroborating evidence, no. If the claim is an extraordinary one, definitely not, unless there is corroborating evidence
I've answered this several times now.


Yes, there are many good reasons to question claims about a dog flying because such a claim is very out of the ordinary.
Just like your resurrection claims. Are you getting it now?


No, it isn't. I've explained this in detail as well.

You believe that there was a “Council of Nicaea” despite the fact that all you have is testimonies as evidence for such an event ... so in this case, you do accept testimonies as evidence

We have primary sources for the event(s). There were decrees, canons and edicts issued by the council elders that we can look at.[/QUOTE]

Yes all you have is the testimony of the elders, so no evidence by your standards

Your standard of evidence doesn't even hold up in a court of law. Oh right, you ignored all the problems with "eyewitness testimony" in that context too.

If eye witness is so problematic as you seem to be affirming, then why do you trust the testimony of the elders?

 

[leroy]

Yes, there are many good reasons to question claims about a dog flying because such a claim is very out of the ordinary.
Just like your resurrection claims. Are you getting it now?

.

That is, and has always been my point, your main issue is that you consider resurrections to be “fantastical”

For example Paul and the authors of the gospels mention that Jesus had 12 disciples , do you have any problem in accepting the historicity of that claim?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know that these 3 points are true, but you don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit it, ptherwise you would have refute them long ago

I addressed them long ago. And then 15 more times. Then you just repeat them again.
That's why this is so tedious.

 

[leroy]

I addressed them long ago. And then 15 more times. Then you just repeat them again.
That's why this is so tedious.

No you changed the topic, and started to talk about irrelevant stuff like the concil of Council of Nicaea

 

[SkepticThinker]

We have primary sources for the event(s).

Yes all you have is the testimony of the elders, so no evidence by your standards
If eye witness is so problematic as you seem to be affirming, then why do you trust the testimony of the elders?

They aren't testimonies like the stories you are quoting from the Bible.

The decrees, edicts and declarations made by the council are primary source documents that were recorded by the people present. They don't contain fantastical magic stories. And if they did? I would urge people not to take those at face value.

I mean, you're citing, as an historically verified event, a story where a guy claims to have seen Jesus' ghost. Do you not see how this is a much different claim than "a bunch of guys met to discuss what should be contained in the Bible and then wrote these decrees, and declarations about it.." ??? And which other story in the Bible is it that you think matches Paul's description perfectly, that you think corroborates Paul's claim?


You really should read through this link, right to the end. ALL the points and ALL the guidelines involved. Instead of just focusing on the one that you think makes your Bible stories true.
How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is, and has always been my point, your main issue is that you consider resurrections to be “fantastical”

For example Paul and the authors of the gospels mention that Jesus had 12 disciples , do you have any problem in accepting the historicity of that claim?

"The plausibility of an event (sometimes called “prior probability”) is its intrinsic likelihood. This is determined by (1) how logical it is; (2) how far outside the realm of normal experience it is, and (3) whether it fits the historical context. Historians are wise to familiarize themselves very deeply with the historical background if they are to make an assessment as to how well a purported event fits the historical context."
How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net

The claim that Jesus had 12 disciplines is a rather mundane claim, especially in comparison the the resurrection claim, wouldn't you say?

 

[leroy]

They aren't testimonies like the stories you are quoting from the Bible.

The decrees, edicts and declarations made by the council are primary source documents that were recorded by the people present. They don't contain fantastical magic stories. And if they did? I would urge people not to take those at face value.

I mean, you're citing, as an historically verified event, a story where a guy claims to have seen Jesus' ghost. Do you not see how this is a much different claim than "a bunch of guys met to discuss what should be contained in the Bible and then wrote these decrees, and declarations about it.." ??? And which other story in the Bible is it that you think matches Paul's description perfectly, that you think corroborates Paul's claim?


You really should read through this link, right to the end. ALL the points and ALL the guidelines involved. Instead of just focusing on the one that you think makes your Bible stories true.
How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net

They don't contain fantastical magic stories.

Ok so testimonies are evidence, (or could be evidence)------------- except when they contain fantastical stories………. Is that what you are claiming?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok so testimonies are evidence, (or could be evidence)------------- except when they contain fantastical stories………. Is that what you are claiming?

 

[leroy]

"The plausibility of an event (sometimes called “prior probability”) is its intrinsic likelihood. This is determined by (1) how logical it is; (2) how far outside the realm of normal experience it is, and (3) whether it fits the historical context. Historians are wise to familiarize themselves very deeply with the historical background if they are to make an assessment as to how well a purported event fits the historical context."
How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net

The claim that Jesus had 12 disciplines is a rather mundane claim, especially in comparison the the resurrection claim, wouldn't you say?

Direct answers are required,

so Paul and + the Gospels are good enough evidcne to establish the existence of 12 “special” disciplines ……… but they are not good enough to stablish the resurrection, because the prior possibility of the first is relativley high and the prior probability of the resurection is low.

is this a correct representation of your view? (this is a yes or no question)