The bible's evidence

[HeWhoAsks]

I'd like to invite thomas in particular and others to agree on a *neutral* description of the bible in terms that would lead us to evalute the quality of the evidence of any book so written. For instance, I'll get the ball rolling with this:

The bible is a book that

1. has been believed (in whole or in part) by millions of people for thousands of years

2. was written by various people at a minimum of decades after its most recent events, and thousands of years or more after its earliest events.

3. is part allegory or metaphor and part literal fact (assuming the easiest case for believers).

4. makes extraordinary claims.

I invite others to add to or change this list, but only in neutral terms. For instance,

A. "The bible is the divinely inspired Word of God" is no good because it assumes what we are investigating; that is, whether the bible is to be believed or not.

B. "The bible is *believed* by many to be the divinely inspired Word of God" would be acceptable, but I think #1 above covers it, basically.

C. "The bible is contradictory" either ignores #3 above or is part of a later argument. That is, if we establish first that the bible otherwise has good evidence for it, we can then discuss how contradictory aspects of it might or might not be resolved. I am seeking to separate out the issue of the quality of evidence from the issue of contradiction.

Once we agree on a definition of the bible in such terms, we can then evaluate whether it or any book should be believed.

[fromsanzabar]

In discussing the historical veracity or reliability of the canon of book called the Bible, we see that Archeology continues to "catch up" with the the book. Biblical events that Christians and Jews have believed on faith are being supported by Archeologists in addition to other works of history. No other book has been tested by skeptics to the degree that the Bible has. It has proven to be more internally and externally consistan than other documents.

That's only one side of the story. Let's hear the skeptics!

[Philboid Studge]

In discussing the historical veracity or reliability of the canon of book called the Bible, we see that Archeology continues to "catch up" with the the book. Biblical events that Christians and Jews have believed on faith are being supported by Archeologists in addition to other works of history. No other book has been tested by skeptics to the degree that the Bible has. It has proven to be more internally and externally consistan than other documents.

That's only one side of the story. Let's hear the skeptics!
Here's an excellent article that posits the opposite view, fromsanzabar, that archaeology has proven much of the Bible to be historically inaccurate. (http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_(Harpers).htm).

[HeWhoAsks]

In discussing the historical veracity or reliability of the canon of book called the Bible, we see that Archeology continues to "catch up" with the the book. Biblical events that Christians and Jews have believed on faith are being supported by Archeologists in addition to other works of history. No other book has been tested by skeptics to the degree that the Bible has. It has proven to be more internally and externally consistan than other documents.

That's only one side of the story. Let's hear the skeptics!
You are so jumping the gun. I think what we could add from your post, if I may is:

5. the bible has sections in it that have been confirmed by scientific archeology.

However, I now see a flaw in my initial approach. It is only with the extraordinary claims that most atheists would have a problem. That is where the issue lies.

So, I'll have to revise my whole point for this thread. Thomas (or other theists) - Can you select a few extraordinary claims from the bible in the list below that you take as literal fact and let's discuss the evidence for them.

1. Jesus' resurrection
2. Jesus' miracles (water to wine, etc.)
3. Noah and the flood
4. Moses at the burning bush

Feel free to add your own.

[Lurker]

So far your list seems pretty factual and neutral. As far as extraordinary claims go, I'd stick with the resurrection and leave the rest out since the entire christian faith hinges on this. This one event is big enough by itself. That's my 2-cents....

[The Judge]

...As far as extraordinary claims go, I'd stick with the resurrection and leave the rest out since the entire christian faith hinges on this...
So do you actually believe this story to be true and a fact?

[Lurker]

...As far as extraordinary claims go, I'd stick with the resurrection and leave the rest out since the entire christian faith hinges on this...
So do you actually believe this story to be true and a fact?
I don't think HWA wants us to start debating this quite yet, but yes I believe it to be a true historical fact. Without it there is no christianity.

[Another brick in the wall]

The Romans were administrators and meticulous record keepers. Is there any record of a Jesus being crucified in that time?

[HeWhoAsks]

The Romans were administrators and meticulous record keepers. Is there any record of a Jesus being crucified in that time?
I like the idea of starting with the resurrection, so let's assume he was crucified (I'm open to debating whether we should assume this or not).

OK, so let's cut to the chase: for such an extraordinary claim as Jesus' resurrection, don't we need far more evidence than those few eyewitnesses who were written about years later? If not, that means that any other claim that is as fantastic, with only a few eyewitnesses, and being written about years later, would be just as believable. Can anyone provide another such example?

[Lurker]

Let's first define what constitutes (extraordinary) evidence. If nothing short of video and pictures will convince you then let's just stop right now.

[HeWhoAsks]

Let's first define what constitutes (extraordinary) evidence. If nothing short of video and pictures will convince you then let's just stop right now.
But even more first (?), do you agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Yea or nay?

[Raiden936]

why do you believe in the bible but not any other religious books?

[ghoulslime]

The Romans were administrators and meticulous record keepers. Is there any record of a Jesus being crucified in that time?
Not only are there no records of Jesus or his lawful execution, but consider this:

A man of infamous stature is tried before hundreds of people and then publically executed. A few days later he comes strolling along the streets saying howdy do to all the people he meets. "Sup, Pilate? Hey, guess what! I came alive again!"
You don't suppose it would raise a few eyebrows? At least muster enough interest in the local magistrate to warrant a simple comment about it in a log book? PILATE: Dear diary, that goddamn Jesus is back! I guess we're going to have to improve our methods of extermination. Romans kept records - good records. There is nothing about the fabulous Jesus tale or little mermaids or the last unicorn.

[thomas]

Hey, HeWhoAsks, you need to define what an extraordinary claim is. I don't have a clear idea of what you include and exclude from an extraordinary claim.

[The Judge]

Hey, HeWhoAsks, you need to define what an extraordinary claim is. I don't have a clear idea of what you include and exclude from an extraordinary claim.
I think you've got to admit that a dead body supposedly coming back to life after 3 days is categorically an extraordinary claim because it flies in the face of current knowledge about biology. I'm willing to bet that human beings were made the same way then as they are now so the laws of science would still apply.

Sorry HWA, just thought I'd jump on the band wagon and chip in. What do others think about how we should define an "extraordinary claim"?

[Philboid Studge]

thomas is right to want a precise definition if he's going to engage. Another Brick gave a rough definition in the other thread: "... something that is either statistically infrequent or never seen/heard before. Claiming to be able to speak 20 languages or travel through time qualify as extraordinary. Extra ordinary: outside everyday experience."

Why don't we just refine the definition? How about "anything that defies physical laws" as one criterion?

[HeWhoAsks]

thomas is right to want a precise definition if he's going to engage. Another Brick gave a rough definition in the other thread: "... something that is either statistically infrequent or never seen/heard before. Claiming to be able to speak 20 languages or travel through time qualify as extraordinary. Extra ordinary: outside everyday experience."

Why don't we just refine the definition? How about "anything that defies physical laws" as one criterion?
If thomas wants a precise definition, I cold ask "how precise?" but this type of wrangling can go on by both sides for a long time and it's not even necessary.

Extraordinary claims are on a continuum of lesser and great extraordinariness, and not just part of a binary distinction. So we'll never be able to draw a firm line, just like you can't draw a line between white and black on a continuum of lighter and darker grays. So, there will not be any firm, logical, mutually-agreed upon absolute criterion for determining whether every case is extraordinary or to what extent. But a little common sense can go a long way.

If we're going to discuss the resurrection and evidence for it, I hope we can all agree that it is an extraordinary event. If not, I'd like to hear someone argue that it isn't. Failing that, let's move on, shall we?

Insisting on a definition of extraordinary beyond what was already provided when discussing the resurrection can only be a dodge designed to forestall the inevitable, that is, the quality of evidence for such an extraordinary event.

[Philboid Studge]

Well then just stick to the resurrection, and don't worry about what constitutes "extraordinary." Let the games begin.

[thomas]

No, it's important to set the ground-rules here, because whatever criteria you choose to apply in order to call the resurrection an extraordinary event you should be able to apply in the same way to other events to determine if they were extraordinary or not.

Let's look at the definitions offered so far and see if we can agree on one of them as suitable.

"flies in the face of the current knowledge about biology". This can't be right. That would mean that any advance in biology would be an extraordinary event and would require extraordinary evidence. Scientists don't believe that. They believe that advances in biological science require normal amounts of evidence not extraordinary evidence.

"anything that defies physical laws". This has the same problem as the biological definition. And additionally, if anything is observed that defies physical laws doesn't that mean that the physical law is wrong ? Meaning merely that the previous explanation using normal amounts of evidence was insufficient ?

"let's use common sense". Unfortunately what I think you mean by that is "let's allow all of my pre-suppositions to be agreed on as ground rules, and none of yours". It's not really a criteria at all.

I don't really think the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has any substance behind it other than being a nice catch phrase for Carl Sagan. It certainly doesn't have any basis in science or in the methods used by historians.

I don't think the resurrection is an extraordinary claim. Nor do I think it's essentially a scientific claim. I think it's a normal historical claim, that should be evaluated on the same basis as other historical claims. So, if you want to talk about the evidence for the resurrection and the criteria by which we should decide if it was an historical event or not, that's fine.

[Lurker]

To follow on the heals of Thomas... to say that the universe came from complete nothingness is an "extraordinary claim". To say that life can be produced from non-living chemicals via a natural, unassisted process is an "extraordinary claim". Science thinks both of these things are true so maybe the term "extraordinary claim" is not appropriate/necessary.

[Tenspace]

Extraordinary, to me, means simply extremely above, or outside of the ordinary. A four leaf clover is extraordinary. Einstein's insight was extraordinary (as well as Maxwell, Darwin, Mach, and a bunch of others). Resurrection is beyond extraordinary; maybe miraculous would be a better term?

Ten

[Another brick in the wall]

No, it's important to set the ground-rules here, because whatever criteria you choose to apply in order to call the resurrection an extraordinary event you should be able to apply in the same way to other events to determine if they were extraordinary or not.

Let's look at the definitions offered so far and see if we can agree on one of them as suitable.

"flies in the face of the current knowledge about biology". This can't be right. That would mean that any advance in biology would be an extraordinary event and would require extraordinary evidence. Scientists don't believe that. They believe that advances in biological science require normal amounts of evidence not extraordinary evidence.

"anything that defies physical laws". This has the same problem as the biological definition. And additionally, if anything is observed that defies physical laws doesn't that mean that the physical law is wrong ? Meaning merely that the previous explanation using normal amounts of evidence was insufficient ?

"let's use common sense". Unfortunately what I think you mean by that is "let's allow all of my pre-suppositions to be agreed on as ground rules, and none of yours". It's not really a criteria at all.

I don't really think the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has any substance behind it other than being a nice catch phrase for Carl Sagan. It certainly doesn't have any basis in science or in the methods used by historians.

I don't think the resurrection is an extraordinary claim. Nor do I think it's essentially a scientific claim. I think it's a normal historical claim, that should be evaluated on the same basis as other historical claims. So, if you want to talk about the evidence for the resurrection and the criteria by which we should decide if it was an historical event or not, that's fine.
There have been no confirmed reports of someone rising from the dead. Shouldn't that fact arouse suspicision?
If I told you I could fly to the moon by flapping my arms, would you believe it? If five of my friends told you would that be enough? What if some book said that a man flew to the moon be flapping his arms 2,000 years ago? Let's not forget that 2,000 years ago, people were not as scientifically advanced as we are today.

[HeWhoAsks]

The reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is that such claims require rewriting so much of accepted knowledge; the amount of evidence needed is approximately proportional to the amount of evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten.

If you *didn't* have extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, then the evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten if the extraordinary claim were true would outweigh the evidence in favor of the extraordinary claim. So accepted knowledge holds.

If you *did* have extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, then the evidence in favor of the extraordinary claim would outweigh the evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten if the extraordinary claim were true, and the extraordinary claim would hold.

[HeWhoAsks]

No, it's important to set the ground-rules here, because whatever criteria you choose to apply in order to call the resurrection an extraordinary event you should be able to apply in the same way to other events to determine if they were extraordinary or not.

Let's look at the definitions offered so far and see if we can agree on one of them as suitable.

"flies in the face of the current knowledge about biology". This can't be right. That would mean that any advance in biology would be an extraordinary event and would require extraordinary evidence. Scientists don't believe that. They believe that advances in biological science require normal amounts of evidence not extraordinary evidence.
What is meant there is not just a new fact that fits in with current theory, but a new piece of data or evidence that would require reinterpreting so much of current theory that it would have to be rewritten. If someone finds a new fossil that is a missing link between two current fossils, that doesn't fly in the face of anything. But if someone finds a fossil that is half human, half beetle, *that* would fly in the face of a lot. There are plenty of advances that are not so radical.

"let's use common sense". Unfortunately what I think you mean by that is "let's allow all of my pre-suppositions to be agreed on as ground rules, and none of yours". It's not really a criteria at all.
Granted. It's our job to make explicit the criterion on which common sense rests (and then critique it).

I don't think the resurrection is an extraordinary claim.
What would you imagine an extraordinary claim to be? What do you understand the words "extraordinary claim" to mean? Either you don't believe any claim can be extraordinary (in which case we have more discussing to do), or you are being disingenuous.

[Lurker]

I don't think unusual should be equated with extraordinary. People dying (flat line EEG in cortex/brainstem) and then coming back to life are unusual but medical/scientific journals have been documenting them for years. See here for one such study. (http://www.anomalistik.de/sdm_nde.pdf)

The doctors/patients in these studies are making a similar claim as the one in the bible, yet I assume most of you accept what the medical journals say without requiring extraordinary evidence to support the claim. Then again, maybe most of you don't accept the journal findings.

If that's the case then here's my question.... If you don't accept what's written in the medical journals today, how do expect to be convinced about something that happened 2000 years ago?

[Another brick in the wall]

First of all, the medical journals and the bible are making separate claims. There's a world of a difference between flatlining for a few minutes and coming back to life after being cucified and then ascending into the sky.

[Another brick in the wall]

This report is about NDE's, which result from being clinically dead: not pulse of breathing but brain activity. Read the interpretation section of the report. It says that it is not known why so few cardiac patients report an NDE.

[Lurker]

First of all, the medical journals and the bible are making separate claims. There's a world of a difference between flatlining for a few minutes and coming back to life after being cucified and then ascending into the sky.
Regardless, the fact is dead people have come back to life according the the latest medical definition of death. Doesn't matter if it's 2 minutes or 2 days in my mind. Blind people have seen the room they were in during these experiences and a whole host of other things that are just as amazing as the resurrection account. You mean to say that blind people seeing something they're not supposed to see is not extraordinary, yet a disappearing body is?

[Another brick in the wall]

There are confirmed reports of blind people recovering their sight. There are no confirmed reports of people flying up to heaven or raising people from the dead. See the difference? If you believe the resurrection story, why do you discount miracle stories in other religions? Aren't they just as credible? Joseph Smith had a dozen witnesses testify to his story, and there's not much doubt about the existence of Joseph Smith.

[Lurker]

There are confirmed reports of blind people recovering their sight. There are no confirmed reports of people flying up to heaven or raising people from the dead. See the difference? If you believe the resurrection story, why do you discount miracle stories in other religions? Aren't they just as credible? Joseph Smith had a dozen witnesses testify to his story, and there's not much doubt about the existence of Joseph Smith.
If blind people claim to see their rooms while they are both blind AND brain dead then how can you say this isn't an extraordinary claim? You're stacking the deck before we even get started.

I discredit mormonism primarily on the basis that it conflicts with what I and most christians interpret the bible to say. For example they say god is flesh and bones, not a spirit.

[Another brick in the wall]

They aren't brain dead. If you read your own link, you would see that NDE's are probably caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. I can see bright lights after taking a massive dump, because the exertion of my muscles starves my brain of oxygen. Also, I don't see what's so extraordinary about a person describing a hospital room while unconscious. I'm could probably guess what a hospital room looks like without seeing it: a bed, people standing over me im green scrubs, bright lights, and beeping machines. You don't need any paranormal powers to do that. No one has ever been revived from brain death. Any doctor who found a way to do so would get the Nobel prize.

Mormonism is wrong because it disagrees with what you already believe? Wow, what sound logic!

[t_hughes]

flies in the face of the current knowledge about biology". This can't be right. That would mean that any advance in biology would be an extraordinary event and would require extraordinary evidence. Scientists don't believe that. They believe that advances in biological science require normal amounts of evidence not extraordinary evidence.

"anything that defies physical laws". This has the same problem as the biological definition. And additionally, if anything is observed that defies physical laws doesn't that mean that the physical law is wrong ? Meaning merely that the previous explanation using normal amounts of evidence was insufficient ?
Actually as stated, those are perfect definitions, and they do not imply what you say they do.

Anything that flew in the face of current biological knowledge would indeed require extraordinary evidence, since it would be attempting to overturn well established theories with a lot of evidence. This would, however, apply to very few advances. New knowledge doesn't necessarily fly in the face of old knowledge, it can augument it, or expand a field about which we have little knowledge.

Likewise, anything that defies current physical laws does indeed require extraordinary evidence, since it amounts to forcing us to reexamine well established physical laws which have a lot of evidence.

You also seem to be confusing an extraordinary event as something that cannot happen:

if anything is observed that defies physical laws doesn't that mean that the physical law is wrong
Exactly, but we'd want a lot of evidence before drawing this conclusion. Not just one experiement, which could have been flawed. More evidence than your regular claim... extraordinarily well detailed and replicated evidence in fact. And, things like this have happened (the experimental basis to the theory of relativity for example).

Considering the state of medical science 2000 years ago, a resurrection after 3 days dead would be an extraordinary event, by the above definition, since it defies current knowledge.

Of course, a person could indeed seem to come to life after 3 days, had they been in a coma and not literally dead. But this just makes the evidence for divinity and/or actual resurrection less plausible. Assuming this does happen (I've heard reports, I don't know how confirmed they are) You'd also have to discuss how likely (or not) such a coma was to result from a crucifixion, after having established if there's enough evidence that JC did appear to be resurrected after 3 days...

- thughes

[Lurker]

They aren't brain dead. If you read your own link, you would see that NDE's are probably caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. I can see bright lights after taking a massive dump, because the exertion of my muscles starves my brain of oxygen. Also, I don't see what's so extraordinary about a person describing a hospital room while unconscious. I'm could probably guess what a hospital room looks like without seeing it: a bed, people standing over me im green scrubs, bright lights, and beeping machines. You don't need any paranormal powers to do that. No one has ever been revived from brain death. Any doctor who found a way to do so would get the Nobel prize.

Mormonism is wrong because it disagrees with what you already believe? Wow, what sound logic!
The introduction states O2 starvation and others are theories. Flashing bright lights are one thing, vivid streaming pictures are another.

These theories do nothing to explain what happened on page 2041. Are the nurse/patient/doctors lying here? Do they require extraordinary evidence or will the eyewitness testimony and medical records be sufficient? If you don't believe them, then how can I convince you of the resurrection?

Some NDE patients were brain dead, read the conclusion.

Mormonism is wrong because it claims to be a further revelation/continuing of the biblical account therefore nothing should disagree with the biblical account - yet it does by their own admission no less. You don't have to believe the bible to be true to compare one to the other and see if they match up.

[Another brick in the wall]

So what if it doesn't match up with the bible. Maybe they're both wrong.

[Another brick in the wall]

Those patients were temporarily flat-lining. They weren't brain-dead. It's completely possible that the near death experiences occurred while the brain was still functioning. It's like I said earlier; it's not hard to guess what a hospital room looks like, and since the doctors are busy doing the operation, their memories are probably fuzzy on the details that might verify the NDE. The vast majority of people do not have NDEs. Shouldn't that count for something?

[Lurker]

So what if it doesn't match up with the bible. Maybe they're both wrong.
Of course they can both be wrong. I'm starting with the assumption that the bible is true and going from there. If you do that, you'll conclude mormonism to be false.

[Another brick in the wall]

Why do you assume the bible is true? If you start with the right assumption, you can prove anything you like.

[Lurker]

Those patients were temporarily flat-lining. They weren't brain-dead. It's completely possible that the near death experiences occurred while the brain was still functioning. It's like I said earlier; it's not hard to guess what a hospital room looks like, and since the doctors are busy doing the operation, their memories are probably fuzzy on the details that might verify the NDE. The vast majority of people do not have NDEs. Shouldn't that count for something?
I pointed you to the wrong place regarding brain death, sorry. Page 2044, second paragraph talks about a woman with flat line EEG - which is one definition of brain death. Same page, fifth paragraph also discusses it.

Temporary flat-lining somehow makes these claims ordinary? Lazurus flat-lined temporarily too so I guess jesus bringing him back from the dead is an ordinary claim made in the bible.

[Another brick in the wall]

There was no medical monitoring technology back then, so Lazarus true condition can never be known. When did I say that bringing someone back from the dead was extraordinary? Resuscitating someone after a few minutes of unconsciousness is normal today, but back then it was a miracle because the medical knowledge was less advanced. Lazarus had been dead for several days, if I recall.

[Lurker]

Why do you assume the bible is true? If you start with the right assumption, you can prove anything you like.
We're talking about mormonism vs. christianity here. Which one came first? Christianity. It makes no sense to assume mormonism is true and work backwords since mormonism is built upon christianity.

[Another brick in the wall]

Buddhism predates Christianity by 600 years. Clearly, it is the one true religion.

[Lurker]

Buddhism predates Christianity by 600 years. Clearly, it is the one true religion.
You seem to keep missing the point, either because you're tired or because you're a jerk. Which is it? Christianity is not built upon Buddhism so these would be 2 separate belief systems that need to be looked at independently. Mormonism (as I've said 3 times already) is built upon christianity. In order for mormonism to be true it must not contradict the basic fundamentals of christianity - but it does.

[Another brick in the wall]

Judaism predates Christianity by 3000 years, and it is a basis for Christianity. My point is you seem to think that the Christianity is true because it is older than other religions, and I provided an example of a religion that was older. That's why I wrote that.

[Lurker]

There was no medical monitoring technology back then, so Lazarus true condition can never be known. When did I say that bringing someone back from the dead was extraordinary? Resuscitating someone after a few minutes of unconsciousness is normal today, but back then it was a miracle because the medical knowledge was less advanced. Lazarus had been dead for several days, if I recall.
Here's an "extraordinary claim" that I thought you'd like...

A 12-year old girl doesn't age. Maybe it's a myth? (Hmm... maybe Noah really did live that long?) VIDEO (http://mfile.akamai.com/12932/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0513/4485108.200k.asx)

[Another brick in the wall]

Ever heard of midgets? People who have hormonal problems don't mature properly. It's an extraordinary thing, but it's been confirmed. Anyway, there's nothing in medical science that suggests a person could live to be 900 years old. Any confirmed reports of that?

[Lurker]

Judaism predates Christianity by 3000 years, and it is a basis for Christianity. My point is you seem to think that the Christianity is true because it is older than other religions, and I provided an example of a religion that was older. That's why I wrote that.
The jews were looking for a messiah back then and still are today. The fact that christians believe they missed the boat doesn't invalidate the basics of judiasm. We both believe in the same god whereas mormonism does not.

[Another brick in the wall]

No, you don't believe in the same god. Jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of the Holy Spirit or the Devil. They're worlds apart. If Jesus was the messiah, why didn't the Jews recognize him as such?

[Lurker]

Ever heard of midgets? People who have hormonal problems don't mature properly. It's an extraordinary thing, but it's been confirmed. Anyway, there's nothing in medical science that suggests a person could live to be 900 years old. Any confirmed reports of that?
Not aging is quite different than staying small while still aging. Big difference. Perhaps you didn't watch the video carefully. She has the body/brain of a 6 month old. The only case in the world.

Confirmed reports of 900 year old people? None. Perhaps this little girl will make it. Problem is I won't be around to see it.

[Another brick in the wall]

So she isn't maturing. Like I said, it's a hormonal problem. If you castrate a young boy, he won't mature. It's extraordinary but not supernatural.

There are many people in the bible that lived to be extremely old, but in later parts, the lifespan shrink to more reasonable labels. This is typical in many mythologies; the oldest characters are superhumans who live very long but as the story progresses closer to memory, the lifespans get smaller.

[Lurker]

So she isn't maturing. Like I said, it's a hormonal problem. If you castrate a young boy, he won't mature. It's extraordinary but not supernatural.
Mystery solved! Thank you Dr. Brick In The Wall. You better tell her physician because he, and every other physician on the planet, don't have a clue as to what the cause is.

We're getting off track...

[Another brick in the wall]

Ha ha, lurker, AKA Mr. Know-it-all. Doctors haven't learned everything there is to know about the human body. Doctors may not know how to treat but I'll make a bet they sure as hell aren't expecting a miracle. Here's something to new to chew on: Why would god torment someone with this affliction?

[ghoulslime]

Ha ha, lurker, AKA Mr. Know-it-all. Doctors haven't learned everything there is to know about the human body. Doctors may not know how to treat but I'll make a bet they sure as hell aren't expecting a miracle. Here's something to new to chew on: Why would god torment someone with this affliction?
He wants to start a chocolate factory. Jesus Wonka Christ! We need more Ompa Lumpas, and fast! :D

[Another brick in the wall]

I want an Umpa-Lumpa! Hell, I'm short enough to be an Umpa-Lumpa.

[thomas]

The reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is that such claims require rewriting so much of accepted knowledge; the amount of evidence needed is approximately proportional to the amount of evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten.
I don't agree. I think only normal evidence is required in this case. The new theory based on that evidence must also take into account previous evidence, or completely discredit that evidence. But no extraordinary evidence is required.

If you *didn't* have extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, then the evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten if the extraordinary claim were true would outweigh the evidence in favor of the extraordinary claim. So accepted knowledge holds.
Not so. If there is normal accepted evidence that disagrees with a theory and is correct then the old theory is wrong. Simple as that. It only takes one apple falling up into a tree to show that Newton was wrong about gravity.

If you *did* have extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, then the evidence in favor of the extraordinary claim would outweigh the evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten if the extraordinary claim were true, and the extraordinary claim would hold.
Well, frankly I don't even know what you mean by etraordinary evidence. But, we're jumping ahead.

[thomas]

Extraordinary, to me, means simply extremely above, or outside of the ordinary. A four leaf clover is extraordinary. Einstein's insight was extraordinary (as well as Maxwell, Darwin, Mach, and a bunch of others). Resurrection is beyond extraordinary; maybe miraculous would be a better term?

Ten
Do you think that the extraordinary claim that four-leaf clovers exist requires ordinary or extraordinary evidence ? I say ordinary.

[thomas]

"flies in the face of the current knowledge about biology". This can't be right. That would mean that any advance in biology would be an extraordinary event and would require extraordinary evidence. Scientists don't believe that. They believe that advances in biological science require normal amounts of evidence not extraordinary evidence.
What is meant there is not just a new fact that fits in with current theory, but a new piece of data or evidence that would require reinterpreting so much of current theory that it would have to be rewritten. If someone finds a new fossil that is a missing link between two current fossils, that doesn't fly in the face of anything. But if someone finds a fossil that is half human, half beetle, *that* would fly in the face of a lot. There are plenty of advances that are not so radical.
But tell me what is this extraordinary evidence that is required for a fossil that is half-human, half beetle ? What's different about that evidence, in contrast to normal evidence ?

I don't think the resurrection is an extraordinary claim.
What would you imagine an extraordinary claim to be? What do you understand the words "extraordinary claim" to mean? Either you don't believe any claim can be extraordinary (in which case we have more discussing to do), or you are being disingenuous.
Like I said I think the resurrection is a normal historical claim. I'll agree that claims require evidence, but your whole notion of somehow creating a higher bar for things you are pre-disposed to doubt is something I can't accept.

[thomas]

Actually as stated, those are perfect definitions, and they do not imply what you say they do.

Anything that flew in the face of current biological knowledge would indeed require extraordinary evidence, since it would be attempting to overturn well established theories with a lot of evidence. This would, however, apply to very few advances. New knowledge doesn't necessarily fly in the face of old knowledge, it can augument it, or expand a field about which we have little knowledge.

Likewise, anything that defies current physical laws does indeed require extraordinary evidence, since it amounts to forcing us to reexamine well established physical laws which have a lot of evidence.
I think you are confusing the creation of scientific theories and the process by which evidence is collected and determined to be correct. You are correct that any new theory formed by the availability of new evidence must also account for all other available evidence. But that doesn't mean that the new evidence has a different "exceptional" standard in order to be shown correct.

You also seem to be confusing an extraordinary event as something that cannot happen:

if anything is observed that defies physical laws doesn't that mean that the physical law is wrong
Exactly, but we'd want a lot of evidence before drawing this conclusion. Not just one experiement, which could have been flawed. More evidence than your regular claim... extraordinarily well detailed and replicated evidence in fact. And, things like this have happened (the experimental basis to the theory of relativity for example).
We would want good evidence, but I don't see in what way the level of evidence that is required is higher.

One other point is that your definition of the evidence that is required suggests that events that happen once can never be proven to have occured ( because they need to be repeatable ). If that's your position then we should stop talking about evidence and the resurrection right now. You'll never accept it.

Considering the state of medical science 2000 years ago, a resurrection after 3 days dead would be an extraordinary event, by the above definition, since it defies current knowledge.

Of course, a person could indeed seem to come to life after 3 days, had they been in a coma and not literally dead. But this just makes the evidence for divinity and/or actual resurrection less plausible. Assuming this does happen (I've heard reports, I don't know how confirmed they are) You'd also have to discuss how likely (or not) such a coma was to result from a crucifixion, after having established if there's enough evidence that JC did appear to be resurrected after 3 days...
All I'm saying is that claims need evidence, and the standard for that evidence should be solid and objective, regardless of ones own disposition to add the subjective label of extraordinary to the subject.

[Another brick in the wall]

One other point is that your definition of the evidence that is required suggests that events that happen once can never be proven to have occured ( because they need to be repeatable ). If that's your position then we should stop talking about evidence and the resurrection right now. You'll never accept it.
The core of science is repeatability. If an event can't be duplicated, it probably never happened. When the FDA tests drugs, the drug has to work most of the time. A drug that only worked once could be fluke or the result of tampering.

[Lurker]

One other point is that your definition of the evidence that is required suggests that events that happen once can never be proven to have occured ( because they need to be repeatable ). If that's your position then we should stop talking about evidence and the resurrection right now. You'll never accept it.
The core of science is repeatability. If an event can't be duplicated, it probably never happened. When the FDA tests drugs, the drug has to work most of the time. A drug that only worked once could be fluke or the result of tampering.
Here we go again...using your criteria most all of history never happened because you can't repeat the events. Alexander the Great is said to have conquered the known world at the age of about 29, however you can't prove that today so I guess it's a myth. According to you, the extraordinary claim of "conquering the known world" and "never losing a battle" requires more proof because nobody today can imagine that being done.

[Another brick in the wall]

There are hundreds of documents and other archaelogical evidence that demonstrate the existence of Alexander the Great. The most we know about Jesus comes from a few documents written years after the events took place. Also, Alexander the Great wasn't the only conqueror in history. Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and Napoleon also conqeured large stretches of territory, so the claim that there have been extremely brilliant commanders is not an extraordinary claim.

[Lurker]

There are hundreds of documents and other archaelogical evidence that demonstrate the existence of Alexander the Great. The most we know about Jesus comes from a few documents written years after the events took place. Also, Alexander the Great wasn't the only conqueror in history. Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and Napoleon also conqeured large stretches of territory, so the claim that there have been extremely brilliant commanders is not an extraordinary claim.
Why do you accept the archaelogical and written evidence for these people and reject it for jesus? I'm not talking about this stuff as proof for their mere existence, I'm talking about proof for the details of their lives. Do you not really care and just accept it because everyone else does, and because it has no impact on your life? Or do you accept it because the evidence supports it?

Similar to the great miliatry leaders you mentioned, there have also been countless resurrection claims throughout history. By your own admission this is not an extraordinary claim. The question for all of us is "How do you know a historical claim is true?"

[Another brick in the wall]

To answer your first question, I accept the existence of those people because there is a lot of credible evidence for it (e.g. we actually have the remains of Napoleon, we have numerous accounts of his battles from his enemies, we have cannon balls and bullets from that period in the places where the battles took place, etc) and the event is plausible. Winning many battles is not impossible, it's been done by others before. There are no credible reports of people rising from the dead (and I mean dead for several days, so don't bore me with stories of people who were accidently buried alive). There are stories of people rising from the dead, but there are also stories of sea serpents. Stories are not sufficient evidence.

[Little Earth Stamper]

I don't understand this confusion about extraordinary claims requiring more evidence. This is a standard we apply routinely in normal thinking.

For example, let's contrast the following statements:

1. "I was just mugged by some guy."

2. "I was just mugged by a half-man half-scorpion creature who came in a beam of light from a flying saucer and told me he was Bill Clinton's son."

Now, if you're a normal person, statement 1 is going to require less evidence then statement 2, because statement 1 contradicts less of what we know about how the universe works. It is less absurd.

I think that if a person was roughed up, and their wallet and wedding ring were missing, this would be sufficient evidence to accept statement 1 as true. However, I do not think it would be sufficient evidence to accept statement 2 as true.

And that is what we mean by "extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[Tenspace]

Extraordinary, to me, means simply extremely above, or outside of the ordinary. A four leaf clover is extraordinary. Einstein's insight was extraordinary (as well as Maxwell, Darwin, Mach, and a bunch of others). Resurrection is beyond extraordinary; maybe miraculous would be a better term?

Ten
Do you think that the extraordinary claim that four-leaf clovers exist requires ordinary or extraordinary evidence ? I say ordinary.
I did not say that the "claim" that FLC's exist is extraordinary. I said that a FLC is extraordinary, because it is, "beyond what is ordinary or usual." And yes, it comes from the extraordinarly ordinary process called mutation. :P

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

One other point is that your definition of the evidence that is required suggests that events that happen once can never be proven to have occured ( because they need to be repeatable ). If that's your position then we should stop talking about evidence and the resurrection right now. You'll never accept it.
The core of science is repeatability. If an event can't be duplicated, it probably never happened. When the FDA tests drugs, the drug has to work most of the time. A drug that only worked once could be fluke or the result of tampering.
Here we go again...using your criteria most all of history never happened because you can't repeat the events. Alexander the Great is said to have conquered the known world at the age of about 29, however you can't prove that today so I guess it's a myth. According to you, the extraordinary claim of "conquering the known world" and "never losing a battle" requires more proof because nobody today can imagine that being done.
So, you're saying that history is empirical, therefore it should adhere to repeatability? Should all of science attempt to adhere to one discipline's core methodology?

Tenspace

[Another brick in the wall]

Like I said before, many people have conquered large parts of the world, and there is ample evidence that this happened. As recently as 60 years ago, the Germans and the Japanese conquered large parts of the world. You'd be hard pressed to deny that WWII happened. But what about Christ's resurrection? There isn't a whole lot of evidence that it happened, and most other accounts of people rising from the dead are discounted as myth. It's funny how believers boisterously insist that their miracles really happened while at the same time vigorously denying similar stories from other religions. All of science should be based on empiricism. An event doesn't necessarily have to be observed more than once, but there should be plenty of evidence to show that it actually did happen.

[whoneedscience]

Not so. If there is normal accepted evidence that disagrees with a theory and is correct then the old theory is wrong. Simple as that. It only takes one apple falling up into a tree to show that Newton was wrong about gravity.
Oh, I love it when people try to refute science by corrupting scientific princliples. A theory is a conceptual construct that offers a suitable explanation for most observed phenomena within a given range of application. Newton had a theory of gravity that is still accepted as generally true because it can be used to solve most physics problems that we would percieve. We now know that it isn't completely right, and that General Relativity better explains gravity where extreme speeds and masses are involved, and we even know that General Relativity isn't completely right as it can't explain interactions at very small scales, but both are still accepted and taught because they work most of the time. Scientists don't pretend to be absolutetely right all the time, only fools do.

And if a single apple fell up a tree it wouldn't change any of this. It would probably be contributed to a freak interaction of another force. In order for anyone to even think about developing another theory, gravity would have to be disturbed long enough to carry out many controlled experiments, and even then Newtonian Universal Gravitation would still be generally accepted because it still works most of the time.

[whoneedscience]

As far as I know there are only two anecdotal references to an actual Jesus other than in the Bible (which has to be completely ignored here because its authors were clearly biased). Combine that with the lack of archeological evidence, and it's more acceptable to believe in the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster.

[t_hughes]

I think you are confusing the creation of scientific theories and the process by which evidence is collected and determined to be correct. You are correct that any new theory formed by the availability of new evidence must also account for all other available evidence. But that doesn't mean that the new evidence has a different "exceptional" standard in order to be shown correct.
Right I get it, the confusion is not about the amount of evidence, but what is meant by extraordinary. I suspect what most people have as the common sense definition is "more evidence is required if the new theory does not fit current evidence, or current theories, or both", which makes sense since experiments can go wrong or be misinterpreted, and is what the scientific community generally requires to be convinced, but you seem to be thinking along the lines of "evidence of a different sort than normal" rather than just "more evidence". If you have an anomalous result that doesn't fit current theory, you want it replicated a few times.

All you really ever need is enough evidence to convince a majority of unbiased people with an understanding of the subject. Evidence is all about convincing people. I don't think anyone has ever measured, or even can measure, the precise amount that is.

One other point is that your definition of the evidence that is required suggests that events that happen once can never be proven to have occured ( because they need to be repeatable ). If that's your position then we should stop talking about evidence and the resurrection right now. You'll never accept it.
See above for my personal definition. I was discussing scientific evidence of the physical law sort primarily because you were discussing the same thing.

For historical occurrances, the more unbiased observations you have, the better your evidence. You can't really prove an historical occurrance that didn't leave behind physical evidence, but you can present very good evidence for one. Actually you can't prove the resurrection either, you're right, to prove it could happen some unbiased observers would have to observe one... but I suspect the real question is, is there enough evidence to make an unbiased observer wonder...?

Eg. did any non-Christians mention the resurrection in contemporary (to the time) writing? Did any mention JC? Did any non christian view JC after the resurrection? How far in the future was the first non-biased (non-Christian) mention? You have to be careful with biased observations, else we'd all be believing Krishna had a virgin birth and the reverend Moon is god...

-Thughes

[Tenspace]

Not so. If there is normal accepted evidence that disagrees with a theory and is correct then the old theory is wrong. Simple as that. It only takes one apple falling up into a tree to show that Newton was wrong about gravity.
I must've missed this post. Thomas, you have just shown a level of ignorance I didn't expect from you. You know very well that Newton's theories aren't wrong. Einstein did not show Newton as wrong. Falling objects didn't suddenly start disobeying his formulae because Einstein figured out relativity.

Einstein refined Newton's gravitation. Newton's mechanics are accurate enough for spaceflight today.

Newton wasn't wrong about gravity. Sheesh. :P

Tenspace

[leguru]

Looking at the resurrection requires several assumptions. Assumption 1: Jesus Christ existed (not supported by adequate evidence to even make a civil judgement). Assumption 2: Jesus died on the cross (a great deal of evidence to the contrary, re: "The Jesus Conspiracy" and "Jesus Lived in India," by Holger Kersten and Elmar R. Gruber) Assumption 3: Jesus resurrected and had witnesses to prove it (read "Who Wrote the New Testament," by Burton L. Mack). Of course, all this would be unnecessary if Jesus Christ were to simply show himself to the media of today - but, then, that wouldn't require brainwashing . . . uhh FAITH. :lol:

[Lurker]

Looking at the resurrection requires several assumptions. Assumption 1: Jesus Christ existed (not supported by adequate evidence to even make a civil judgement). Assumption 2: Jesus died on the cross (a great deal of evidence to the contrary, re: "The Jesus Conspiracy" and "Jesus Lived in India," by Holger Kersten and Elmar R. Gruber) Assumption 3: Jesus resurrected and had witnesses to prove it (read "Who Wrote the New Testament," by Burton L. Mack). Of course, all this would be unnecessary if Jesus Christ were to simply show himself to the media of today - but, then, that wouldn't require brainwashing . . . uhh FAITH. :lol:
*cough* *cough* *gasp* *cough* *weez*

Man that was bad. Can I have the last 2 minutes of my life back please?

[HeWhoAsks]

The reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is that such claims require rewriting so much of accepted knowledge; the amount of evidence needed is approximately proportional to the amount of evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten.
I don't agree. I think only normal evidence is required in this case. The new theory based on that evidence must also take into account previous evidence, or completely discredit that evidence. But no extraordinary evidence is required.
If someone claims an apple falls upward, you don't just need, say, one person who, for instance, has a video of an apple falling upward. That would seem to be sufficient ordinary evidence, no? But an apple falling upward (absent other forces besides gravity) would be so revolutionary that even a video shouldn't be believed; others would have to be able to replicate the apple falling upward, etc. Now, a video of an apple falling upward might be reason for others to start trying to duplicate it pronto, because it sure looks interesting: but the apple falling upward shouldn't be *believed* until it was so well confirmed that it would then be worth trashing the current theory of gravity to accomodate it.

If you *didn't* have extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, then the evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten if the extraordinary claim were true would outweigh the evidence in favor of the extraordinary claim. So accepted knowledge holds.
Not so. If there is normal accepted evidence that disagrees with a theory and is correct then the old theory is wrong. Simple as that. It only takes one apple falling up into a tree to show that Newton was wrong about gravity.
I still disagree. If we're confronted with "normal accepted evidence that disagrees with a theory," and a greater amount of evidence of greater quality supporting the old theory (because it's been around longer, etc.), you have to still do with the old theory because it explains more (it explains all that old evidence supporting it). You said "and is correct," but it would still be proper to not accept a theory that turned out to be true until the evidence for it was enough.

If you *did* have extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, then the evidence in favor of the extraordinary claim would outweigh the evidence in favor of accepted knowledge that would have to be rewritten if the extraordinary claim were true, and the extraordinary claim would hold.
Well, frankly I don't even know what you mean by etraordinary evidence. But, we're jumping ahead.
By extraordinary evidence, I mean both quantity and quality of evidence. Quantity: the phenomenon can be replicated by others. Quality: experiments account for bias, mistakes, etc.

[HeWhoAsks]

But tell me what is this extraordinary evidence that is required for a fossil that is half-human, half beetle ? What's different about that evidence, in contrast to normal evidence ?
That fossil would be *so* thoroughly checked out for fraud, etc. Even one fossil might not be enough for it to be believed. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone actually presented such a fossil, that scientists should immediately go out and start overturning all their theories? The risk of something else going on other than what looks obvious is great because you'd be trashing so much good theory if it turns out that something else is going on than the obvious (a half-human, half-beetle actually existed).

What would you imagine an extraordinary claim to be? What do you understand the words "extraordinary claim" to mean? Either you don't believe any claim can be extraordinary (in which case we have more discussing to do), or you are being disingenuous.
Like I said I think the resurrection is a normal historical claim. I'll agree that claims require evidence, but your whole notion of somehow creating a higher bar for things you are pre-disposed to doubt is something I can't accept.
Wait, you didn't answer my questions above. Can you please give me a direct answer to those question? I didn't ask you what type of claim the resurrection was.

[thomas]

Not so. If there is normal accepted evidence that disagrees with a theory and is correct then the old theory is wrong. Simple as that. It only takes one apple falling up into a tree to show that Newton was wrong about gravity.
I must've missed this post. Thomas, you have just shown a level of ignorance I didn't expect from you. You know very well that Newton's theories aren't wrong. Einstein did not show Newton as wrong. Falling objects didn't suddenly start disobeying his formulae because Einstein figured out relativity.

Einstein refined Newton's gravitation. Newton's mechanics are accurate enough for spaceflight today.

Newton wasn't wrong about gravity. Sheesh. :P
You missed both the post and the point of the post.

[thomas]

I don't understand this confusion about extraordinary claims requiring more evidence. This is a standard we apply routinely in normal thinking.

For example, let's contrast the following statements:

1. "I was just mugged by some guy."

2. "I was just mugged by a half-man half-scorpion creature who came in a beam of light from a flying saucer and told me he was Bill Clinton's son."

Now, if you're a normal person, statement 1 is going to require less evidence then statement 2, because statement 1 contradicts less of what we know about how the universe works. It is less absurd.

I think that if a person was roughed up, and their wallet and wedding ring were missing, this would be sufficient evidence to accept statement 1 as true. However, I do not think it would be sufficient evidence to accept statement 2 as true.

And that is what we mean by "extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Well, do you require "more" evidence or "extraordinary" evidence ? If 500 people saw the creature, the beam of light and the flying saucer would that be enough evidence for you ?

[thomas]

And if a single apple fell up a tree it wouldn't change any of this. It would probably be contributed to a freak interaction of another force. In order for anyone to even think about developing another theory, gravity would have to be disturbed long enough to carry out many controlled experiments, and even then Newtonian Universal Gravitation would still be generally accepted because it still works most of the time.
This is so much bullshit, from our almighty scientist. What the fuck is a "freak interaction of another force". Quit speaking out of your arse and try and follow the point.

[thomas]

As far as I know there are only two anecdotal references to an actual Jesus other than in the Bible (which has to be completely ignored here because its authors were clearly biased). Combine that with the lack of archeological evidence, and it's more acceptable to believe in the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster.
Which just demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

[thomas]

See above for my personal definition. I was discussing scientific evidence of the physical law sort primarily because you were discussing the same thing.

For historical occurrances, the more unbiased observations you have, the better your evidence. You can't really prove an historical occurrance that didn't leave behind physical evidence, but you can present very good evidence for one. Actually you can't prove the resurrection either, you're right, to prove it could happen some unbiased observers would have to observe one... but I suspect the real question is, is there enough evidence to make an unbiased observer wonder...?

Eg. did any non-Christians mention the resurrection in contemporary (to the time) writing? Did any mention JC? Did any non christian view JC after the resurrection? How far in the future was the first non-biased (non-Christian) mention? You have to be careful with biased observations, else we'd all be believing Krishna had a virgin birth and the reverend Moon is god...

-Thughes
Yes, I agree with much of this. One comment would be that it's a little tough to stand at this point in history and really have a good idea of what an unbiased observer would be. After all if some people really did see God incarnate, resurrected and then wrote about it, in what sense could you today call them biased or unbiased ? I think that would depend on your presuppositions and not on their neutrality.

[thomas]

By extraordinary evidence, I mean both quantity and quality of evidence. Quantity: the phenomenon can be replicated by others. Quality: experiments account for bias, mistakes, etc.
So are you saying that you can never believe in the resurrection because it can't be repeated by others ? And that you can't believe in it because there is no scientific experimental evidence of the event that accounts for bias and mistakes ?

If that's the case then we should stop talking about this now, and add to the list all the other historical events that you can't accept by this criteria.

[Tenspace]

Not so. If there is normal accepted evidence that disagrees with a theory and is correct then the old theory is wrong. Simple as that. It only takes one apple falling up into a tree to show that Newton was wrong about gravity.
I must've missed this post. Thomas, you have just shown a level of ignorance I didn't expect from you. You know very well that Newton's theories aren't wrong. Einstein did not show Newton as wrong. Falling objects didn't suddenly start disobeying his formulae because Einstein figured out relativity.

Einstein refined Newton's gravitation. Newton's mechanics are accurate enough for spaceflight today.

Newton wasn't wrong about gravity. Sheesh. :P
You missed both the post and the point of the post.
Now that I have found the post, maybe you could lead me to the point?

Ten

[HeWhoAsks]

By extraordinary evidence, I mean both quantity and quality of evidence. Quantity: the phenomenon can be replicated by others. Quality: experiments account for bias, mistakes, etc.
So are you saying that you can never believe in the resurrection because it can't be repeated by others ? And that you can't believe in it because there is no scientific experimental evidence of the event that accounts for bias and mistakes ?

If that's the case then we should stop talking about this now, and add to the list all the other historical events that you can't accept by this criteria.
Yes, single historical events cannot be duplicated. But independent observers can be. So, a historical event that only a few people witness is to be believed less than one for which there are more independent observers.

Note I express this idea in terms of tendencies and percentages, not in terms of absolutes. You keep on expressing your ideas in terms of absolutes ("can never believe," "you can't believe it,"). This is a big point. Knowledge is usually not black and white: we rarely know something for sure (beyond the personal), but more often in shades of knowledge or ignorance.

And, yes, if there is no way to reasonably be sure that bias and mistakes haven't been accounted for, we have less reason to believe something. Is there a problem with that idea?

[whoneedscience]

As far as I know there are only two anecdotal references to an actual Jesus other than in the Bible (which has to be completely ignored here because its authors were clearly biased). Combine that with the lack of archeological evidence, and it's more acceptable to believe in the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster.
Which just demonstrates your lack of knowledge.
Wow, I like the ambiguous, if hostile answer. Were you going to enlighten me with an extensive list of objective references to a historical Jesus, or just jeer at the stupid atheist?

And if a single apple fell up a tree it wouldn't change any of this. It would probably be contributed to a freak interaction of another force. In order for anyone to even think about developing another theory, gravity would have to be disturbed long enough to carry out many controlled experiments, and even then Newtonian Universal Gravitation would still be generally accepted because it still works most of the time.
This is so much bullshit, from our almighty scientist. What the fuck is a "freak interaction of another force". Quit speaking out of your arse and try and follow the point.
I thought I was clear enough. If you saw an airplane fly over you, you wouldn't assume that gravity stopped working, you would realize that some force must have caused it to fly. This is specifically a lifting force created by the shape of the wing and the air flowing over it: air hits wing, wing responds by Newton's third law (and to pressure differences, yes). Ergo, if you saw an apple fall up a tree, you might asume that it was caused by a powerful updraft, or perhaps some other extraordinary interaction, such as an earthquake. In order to conclude that gravity had completely stopped working, you would have to perform some more sophisticated experiments to measure gravity in that area. If you said, "I just saw an apple fall up a tree, Newton and Einstein were wrong and we should throw out everything we know about gravity!" people wouldn't believe you, because there is so much support for their theories and none to support yours. This is why real scientists don't believe in UFOs or little green men or moon conspiracies.

If this concept of scientific integrity and method is confusing, I recommend taking a sixth grade science class instead of wasting our time.

[thomas]

Now that I have found the post, maybe you could lead me to the point?
Sure, my point was not about the correctness or incorrectness of Newtons Laws. It was about what evidence would be required to overturn those laws and show them wrong. There seems to be a general feeling on this thread that there are some special circumstances which lead to a need for extraordinary evidence in order to prove them. I don't think that is right, and I don't even know how to define what an extraordinary amount or type of evidence really is, in comparison to normal evidence.

I mean, when Einstein came up with a theory that in part showed Newton was only partly correct, was extraordinary evidence required to prove the theory or just ordinary amounts of evidence ?

[thomas]

Yes, single historical events cannot be duplicated. But independent observers can be. So, a historical event that only a few people witness is to be believed less than one for which there are more independent observers.
I agree, how many independent (by which I assume you mean individual?) observers are required to satisfy your own demands for proof of an historical event ? 1, 10, 100, 500, 10000 ?

Note I express this idea in terms of tendencies and percentages, not in terms of absolutes. You keep on expressing your ideas in terms of absolutes ("can never believe," "you can't believe it,"). This is a big point. Knowledge is usually not black and white: we rarely know something for sure (beyond the personal), but more often in shades of knowledge or ignorance.
You are the one who gave the absolute definition for extraordinary evidence. You now seem to be back-tracking away from it. Do you have a new definition of what extraordinary evidence might be ?

I agree that historical knowedge is often difficult to know for certain, but still we do hold that events absolutely did happen with a high degree of certainty, using acknowledged historical standards. These are the standards I apply to the resurrection. Do you disagree that this is appropriate ?

And, yes, if there is no way to reasonably be sure that bias and mistakes haven't been accounted for, we have less reason to believe something. Is there a problem with that idea?
No, no problem at all. We should however apply equal criteria to historical events to determine if we are willing to believe in them or not. Is there a problem with that idea ?

[Little Earth Stamper]

I don't understand this confusion about extraordinary claims requiring more evidence. This is a standard we apply routinely in normal thinking.

For example, let's contrast the following statements:

1. "I was just mugged by some guy."

2. "I was just mugged by a half-man half-scorpion creature who came in a beam of light from a flying saucer and told me he was Bill Clinton's son."

Now, if you're a normal person, statement 1 is going to require less evidence then statement 2, because statement 1 contradicts less of what we know about how the universe works. It is less absurd.

I think that if a person was roughed up, and their wallet and wedding ring were missing, this would be sufficient evidence to accept statement 1 as true. However, I do not think it would be sufficient evidence to accept statement 2 as true.

And that is what we mean by "extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Well, do you require "more" evidence or "extraordinary" evidence ? If 500 people saw the creature, the beam of light and the flying saucer would that be enough evidence for you ?
More and different. Eyewitness accounts of that number would be borderline believable. Think about this: I can easily find 500 people who have seen, say, Vishnu. Yet you still don't believe in Vishnu.

Anyway, what's the quibble with the difference between "extraordinary" and "More"? Either way, the Jesus claim fails the test.

[thomas]

As far as I know there are only two anecdotal references to an actual Jesus other than in the Bible (which has to be completely ignored here because its authors were clearly biased). Combine that with the lack of archeological evidence, and it's more acceptable to believe in the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster.
I've got two problems with what you've written here. First, it is not reasonable to discount the early christian documents because they were written by people who believed what they saw. After all, an encounter with the resurrected Son of God is hardly likely to leave you unbiased is it ? Secondly, the scholarly support for those documents is large, and well studied and believed by what I believe is a credible group of academics following good process. Take a look at this link (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) for a good overview. Does the Loch Ness Monster and Yeti really have this kind of academic support ?

I thought I was clear enough. If you saw an airplane fly over you, you wouldn't assume that gravity stopped working, you would realize that some force must have caused it to fly. This is specifically a lifting force created by the shape of the wing and the air flowing over it: air hits wing, wing responds by Newton's third law (and to pressure differences, yes). Ergo, if you saw an apple fall up a tree, you might asume that it was caused by a powerful updraft, or perhaps some other extraordinary interaction, such as an earthquake. In order to conclude that gravity had completely stopped working, you would have to perform some more sophisticated experiments to measure gravity in that area. If you said, "I just saw an apple fall up a tree, Newton and Einstein were wrong and we should throw out everything we know about gravity!" people wouldn't believe you, because there is so much support for their theories and none to support yours. This is why real scientists don't believe in UFOs or little green men or moon conspiracies.

If this concept of scientific integrity and method is confusing, I recommend taking a sixth grade science class instead of wasting our time.
Hmmm, I thought you'd be able to see the point without being quite so literal about it. Obviously not. Take a look at my point to Ten above. Was it extraordinary or ordinary evidence that was required to show that Einstein was more correct about gravity than Newton ?

[Lurker]

More and different. Eyewitness accounts of that number would be borderline believable. Think about this: I can easily find 500 people who have seen, say, Vishnu. Yet you still don't believe in Vishnu.
This is interesting. If the Vishnu people actually saw him then I would expect major things to happen in these people's lives. Major changes that is. Did they see him and then return to work on Monday without saying anything or did they tell as many people as they could because they knew it was true - they discovered the real god? On the other hand, the apostles lives changed dramatically. Does this count as 'extraordinary'?

[Tenspace]

Now that I have found the post, maybe you could lead me to the point?
Sure, my point was not about the correctness or incorrectness of Newtons Laws. It was about what evidence would be required to overturn those laws and show them wrong. There seems to be a general feeling on this thread that there are some special circumstances which lead to a need for extraordinary evidence in order to prove them. I don't think that is right, and I don't even know how to define what an extraordinary amount or type of evidence really is, in comparison to normal evidence.

I mean, when Einstein came up with a theory that in part showed Newton was only partly correct, was extraordinary evidence required to prove the theory or just ordinary amounts of evidence ?
Actually, extraordinary evidence was required. Mercury's orbit was not quite correct according to Newton's laws. The first test of Einstein's relativity was to recalculate Mercury's orbit; this was the first verification of the theory. The second came when the prediction that starlight would be bent by the sun's gravity. This was confirmed by measuring an occulting star during a solar eclipse.

I see your point; you're not saying that new theories bury the old, but that in order to accept a new theory's extraordinary claims, it would need some type of evidence or verification. But also keep in mind that what was extraordinary a hundred years ago is quite ordinary now.

Tenspace

[thomas]

More and different. Eyewitness accounts of that number would be borderline believable. Think about this: I can easily find 500 people who have seen, say, Vishnu. Yet you still don't believe in Vishnu.

Anyway, what's the quibble with the difference between "extraordinary" and "More"? Either way, the Jesus claim fails the test.
I actually do think it is somewhat credible that Krishna was an historical figure. What do you think ?

I'm really only trying to make sure we agree on the criteria for establishing the claims of Christianity. So far we've just got the Saganism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but no-one has yet managed to propose and defend exactly what extraordinary evidence actually means.

[thomas]

Actually, extraordinary evidence was required. Mercury's orbit was not quite correct according to Newton's laws. The first test of Einstein's relativity was to recalculate Mercury's orbit; this was the first verification of the theory. The second came when the prediction that starlight would be bent by the sun's gravity. This was confirmed by measuring an occulting star during a solar eclipse.
Agreed, except that I don't think is extraordinary evidence by scientific standards, just ordinary evidence.

I see your point; you're not saying that new theories bury the old, but that in order to accept a new theory's extraordinary claims, it would need some type of evidence or verification. But also keep in mind that what was extraordinary a hundred years ago is quite ordinary now.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. And your point about the subjectiveness of "extraordinary" is well made. Not only the distance of time but the general pre-suppositions of the one claiming "extraordinary" makes it a dangerous concept to try and apply in an objective manner.

[Tenspace]

Actually, Einstein's predictions were quite extraordinary. He became an international hero after the verification of his theories. His way of thinking about spacetime was so different than the then-current methods that it pushed him to celebrity status.

I do agree that the "extraordinariness" is relative to the place, time, and environment of the claims involved.

Tenspace

[thomas]

Ten, we need to start another topic where we can disagree more :)

You're right that Einstein and his predictions were absolutely extraordinary. I'm pondering Bill Bryson's claim that if Einstein hadn't come up with his theory that its possible that no other human would have thought of it yet. I'd class him alongside people like Socrates who really opened up whole new ways of thinking. Incredible.

But the science that proved his extraordinary theories required ordinary amounts of evidence.

[Tenspace]

Ten, we need to start another topic where we can disagree more :)

You're right that Einstein and his predictions were absolutely extraordinary. I'm pondering Bill Bryson's claim that if Einstein hadn't come up with his theory that its possible that no other human would have thought of it yet. I'd class him alongside people like Socrates who really opened up whole new ways of thinking. Incredible.

But the science that proved his extraordinary theories required ordinary amounts of evidence.
I'll have to read up on Bryson's claims. I know that Minkowski was working on a similar path as Einstein. Also Bernhard Reimann had developed the metric tensors necessary to build Einstein's configuration space.

I think it was a matter of time, but it's very possible that if the "bad guys" got there first, we'd all be studying physics in German anyway. ;)

Ten

[schemanista]

Well, do you require "more" evidence or "extraordinary" evidence ? If 500 people saw the creature, the beam of light and the flying saucer would that be enough evidence for you ?
I would like some way to verify that 500 people did in fact see this, not that someone claims that 500 people saw it. Actually, I wouldn't require 500. I'd settle for 4. But I'd want some assurance that their recollection wasn't second-hand and didn't appear several decades later, after the eyewitnesses were all dead... and that their recollections didn't include geographic and historical errors which would lead me to conclude that they couldn't have been there after all.

And if they make reference to oral tradition then I'm going to dismiss them out of hand (as eyewitnesses I mean).

[Tenspace]

If you walked into my living room and said, I have a singing, dancing pig who is fluent in four human languages, and you demonstrated the pig's abilities, I wouldn't say, "Well, that's just one pig. Bring me twenty more and I'll believe you." :)

However, if I came to you and said, "I just saw a singing, dancing pig who is fluent in four human languages", I imagine it would take more than my word for you to believe me.

Ten

[thomas]

I would like some way to verify that 500 people did in fact see this, not that someone claims that 500 people saw it. Actually, I wouldn't require 500. I'd settle for 4. But I'd want some assurance that their recollection wasn't second-hand and didn't appear several decades later, after the eyewitnesses were all dead... and that their recollections didn't include geographic and historical errors which would lead me to conclude that they couldn't have been there after all.

And if they make reference to oral tradition then I'm going to dismiss them out of hand (as eyewitnesses I mean).
Well that's a whole lot of history that you are scrubbing out if you don't depend somewhat on oral history. Surely the real question about oral history is to determine if it is reliable or not ?

[thomas]

However, if I came to you and said, "I just saw a singing, dancing pig who is fluent in four human languages", I imagine it would take more than my word for you to believe me.
Come on, Ten, you know I believe everything you say. What song does it sing ?

It would take more than you word, a video would be a good start, and maybe a confirmation from somebody I trusted (not that I don't trust you of course....). Now what about a singing, dancing, polyglot pig from 2000 years ago. What would you require as evidence to make you believe in that ?

[whoneedscience]

Hmmm, I thought you'd be able to see the point without being quite so literal about it. Obviously not. Take a look at my point to Ten above. Was it extraordinary or ordinary evidence that was required to show that Einstein was more correct about gravity than Newton ?
I'm a litle behind on the argument here, and I might be beating a dead horse, but the claim that light would be bent by a massive object is an extraordinary claim accompanied by extraordinary evidence. Even more so is the claim that objects travelling different speeds or experiencing different gravitational fields age at different rates, yet we know that they do. If they didn't do so in the same way Einstein predicted, the entire network of GPS satellites wouldn't work.

But the science that proved his extraordinary theories required ordinary amounts of evidence
I would say that all theoretical claims require what is, to the average person, an extraordinary amount of evidence gathered in an extraordinary manner. My point is, I don't see either in the claim that Jesus rose from the dead or performed miracles. If I'm to beleive in a scientific theory, I want to see how the experiments were carried out, what their controls were, how they measured their variables, how many trials they performed, etc. I don't see anything remotely like this in the Bible. If a scientist were to come up to me and say he's developed a way to make people rise from the dead, that's an extraordinary claim! Yes, it's a subjective term, but that's not the kind of thing you see every day (nor are time dialations, bending light rays, etc.). I would want to see everything he did before I believed him. How does Jesus get away with not having any legitimate evidence. If so many people saw him, why weren't there writers all over the area describing the events instead of just a few, who clearly had something to gain by claiming he was the son of God so they could justify their devotion to him.

I see where you're coming from, thomas, but in order to question my conviction that God and Jesus do not exist, I'd have to be blown away with reliable evidence, and I'm not seeing it anywhere. Nessy and the Yeti were a little bit of hyperbole, but I don't see much difference between UFO or moon landing conspiracy theories and scripture. Proponents of both think they see evidence for their beliefs where there are much more reasonable explanations staring them in the face.

[schemanista]

Well that's a whole lot of history that you are scrubbing out if you don't depend somewhat on oral history.
How much history depends entirely on eyewitness accounts? I think most historians require some kind of corroborating evidence, which is absent from the Gospel traditions. And I was hoping you'd read that remark in the context of the paragraph which preceeded it (you know, the part in which I express my doubt that the Gospel accounts are those of eyewitnesses).

Evidence from multiple lines of concurrent inquiry is the best case but it's not always available. In those situations, don't most historians only make provisional claims?

Surely the real question about oral history is to determine if it is reliable or not ?
Why do you think the oral history which underpins the Gospel accounts is historically (as opposed to mythically) accurate?

[thomas]

I see where you're coming from, thomas, but in order to question my conviction that God and Jesus do not exist, I'd have to be blown away with reliable evidence, and I'm not seeing it anywhere.
Now that is a reasonable position. You want reliable evidence. Of course.

[HeWhoAsks]

Yes, single historical events cannot be duplicated. But independent observers can be. So, a historical event that only a few people witness is to be believed less than one for which there are more independent observers.
I agree, how many independent (by which I assume you mean individual?) observers are required to satisfy your own demands for proof of an historical event ? 1, 10, 100, 500, 10000 ?
I'm not a professional, so I can't tell you. But the principle is: the more, the better. Agreed?

Note I express this idea in terms of tendencies and percentages, not in terms of absolutes. You keep on expressing your ideas in terms of absolutes ("can never believe," "you can't believe it,"). This is a big point. Knowledge is usually not black and white: we rarely know something for sure (beyond the personal), but more often in shades of knowledge or ignorance.
You are the one who gave the absolute definition for extraordinary evidence. You now seem to be back-tracking away from it. Do you have a new definition of what extraordinary evidence might be ?
Whoa!

1. You're confusing a definition with knowledge. I gave a definition for extraordinary evidence, but I was talking about knowledge accumulated through the scientific method above. Two different things.

2. And who said I gave an *absolute* definition of extraordinary evidence? I merely gave *a* definition. And, on top of that, nearly any definition is bound to have its gray areas. (Try to come up with a definition of, say, "chair," that is absolutely airtight, and you'll soon be able to admit many exceptions to the definition.)

I agree that historical knowedge is often difficult to know for certain, but still we do hold that events absolutely did happen with a high degree of certainty, using acknowledged historical standards. These are the standards I apply to the resurrection. Do you disagree that this is appropriate ?
What are those standards?

And, yes, if there is no way to reasonably be sure that bias and mistakes haven't been accounted for, we have less reason to believe something. Is there a problem with that idea?
No, no problem at all. We should however apply equal criteria to historical events to determine if we are willing to believe in them or not. Is there a problem with that idea ?
No, not at all. But don't you think that bias has not been accounted for in the case of the observers of the supposed resurrection?

[thomas]

I'm not a professional, so I can't tell you. But the principle is: the more, the better. Agreed?
Yes, in general, the more the better.

1. You're confusing a definition with knowledge. I gave a definition for extraordinary evidence, but I was talking about knowledge accumulated through the scientific method above. Two different things.
I know. So do you have a definition of extraordinary evidence that you want to put forwards or not ?

2. And who said I gave an *absolute* definition of extraordinary evidence? I merely gave *a* definition. And, on top of that, nearly any definition is bound to have its gray areas. (Try to come up with a definition of, say, "chair," that is absolutely airtight, and you'll soon be able to admit many exceptions to the definition.)
OK, no problem. I thought we were trying to get clarity on the criteria we would need to judge if the bible was reliable or not, and specifically the historicity of the resurrection. Are you saying that coming to such a definition of the criteria isn't possible ?

What are those standards?
Ha ! Good question. That's put me on the spot. Let me propose the following

- Does the document have external verification
- Does the document have internal evidence to support its reliability
- Do we know the document has been reliably copied and transmitted in its original form.


No, not at all. But don't you think that bias has not been accounted for in the case of the observers of the supposed resurrection?
I've made this point several times but not got any bites on it yet. Is it really reasonable to discount the eyewitness accounts of an event because they actually believed it happened ?

[HeWhoAsks]

I'm not a professional, so I can't tell you. But the principle is: the more, the better. Agreed?
Yes, in general, the more the better.
Hah! Who says people who disagree can't agree on some things (maybe all)?

1. You're confusing a definition with knowledge. I gave a definition for extraordinary evidence, but I was talking about knowledge accumulated through the scientific method above. Two different things.
I know. So do you have a definition of extraordinary evidence that you want to put forwards or not ?
Haven't I already done this? See your post #82 in which you quote me. It's not complicated. Extraordinary evidence is more of it and more objective. I'm not a pro, so I can't give you a specific example. But what is wrong with the general principle of "the more a claim would overthrow what we know, the more evidence is needed." I've thrown that out before and now, Thomas, you've led the discussion back in a circle. I've also quantified things relatively: in order for an extraordinary claim to overthrow established knowledge, it would need to explain more than what the current theory does. The criterion is "explain as much as possible as simply as possible." That's why a resurrection is extraordinary: it would be a unique and astounding event that would overthrow much of what we know.

2. And who said I gave an *absolute* definition of extraordinary evidence? I merely gave *a* definition. And, on top of that, nearly any definition is bound to have its gray areas. (Try to come up with a definition of, say, "chair," that is absolutely airtight, and you'll soon be able to admit many exceptions to the definition.)
OK, no problem. I thought we were trying to get clarity on the criteria we would need to judge if the bible was reliable or not, and specifically the historicity of the resurrection. Are you saying that coming to such a definition of the criteria isn't possible ?
It think this is covered below.

What are those standards?
Ha ! Good question. That's put me on the spot.
I was just about ready to try it myself when I realized I couldn't, so I thought I tag you so that you were It. :)

Let me propose the following

- Does the document have external verification
- Does the document have internal evidence to support its reliability
- Do we know the document has been reliably copied and transmitted in its original form.
Seriously, I need help from some more historical types here who know of what they speak. Anyone?

No, not at all. But don't you think that bias has not been accounted for in the case of the observers of the supposed resurrection?
I've made this point several times but not got any bites on it yet. Is it really reasonable to discount the eyewitness accounts of an event because they actually believed it happened ?
You're not advancing a reason why they make their claim, you're just saying that they have a claim with different words (they "believe," they "make a claim").

One of the things that has to be controlled for are the following possibilities:

1. The eyewitnesses are lying for some reason (people *do* lie in nearly every circumstance).

2. We've misunderstood what the eyewitnesses really meant.

3. There were no eyewitnesses - somehow we've got that fact wrong.

etc.

[HeWhoAsks]

Let me propose the following

- Does the document have external verification
- Does the document have internal evidence to support its reliability
- Do we know the document has been reliably copied and transmitted in its original form.
Another: Eyewitness accounts need corroborating evidence. The resurrection lacks this.

[thomas]

Well that's a whole lot of history that you are scrubbing out if you don't depend somewhat on oral history.
How much history depends entirely on eyewitness accounts? I think most historians require some kind of corroborating evidence, which is absent from the Gospel traditions. And I was hoping you'd read that remark in the context of the paragraph which preceeded it (you know, the part in which I express my doubt that the Gospel accounts are those of eyewitnesses).
I disagree. Much of what we accept as ancient history relies on eyewitness accounts, recorded in documents some time after the event by those involved or people who gathered data from them. The NT does have some external evidence in other documents and in archeology. I'm sure we could argue about its sufficiency.

Evidence from multiple lines of concurrent inquiry is the best case but it's not always available. In those situations, don't most historians only make provisional claims?
Well actually most historians make their careers by making over-reaching, over-dramatic claims ! Provisional claims don't sell many books. But I know what you mean and I agree that multiple corroborating sources are preferable, and that is what you find in the Gospels.

Surely the real question about oral history is to determine if it is reliable or not ?
Why do you think the oral history which underpins the Gospel accounts is historically (as opposed to mythically) accurate?
I don't think there is sufficient time between the events claimed and the Gospel accounts to allow for the development of such a myth. Can you name another myth with such public elements ( crowds of 5000 people ) that developed and was established in such a short time ?

[thomas]

Let me propose the following

- Does the document have external verification
- Does the document have internal evidence to support its reliability
- Do we know the document has been reliably copied and transmitted in its original form.
Another: Eyewitness accounts need corroborating evidence. The resurrection lacks this.
OK so

- Does the document have external verification
- Does the document have internal evidence to support its reliability
- Do we know the document has been reliably copied and transmitted in its original form
- Do eye-witness accounts have corroborating evidence

And I want to add

- Is there another credible explanation for the document other than it being reliable.

[HeWhoAsks]

How much history depends entirely on eyewitness accounts? I think most historians require some kind of corroborating evidence, which is absent from the Gospel traditions. And I was hoping you'd read that remark in the context of the paragraph which preceeded it (you know, the part in which I express my doubt that the Gospel accounts are those of eyewitnesses).
I disagree. Much of what we accept as ancient history relies on eyewitness accounts, recorded in documents some time after the event by those involved or people who gathered data from them.
If you could give some examples, I could decide whether to cackle in glee over how I will rip your argument to shreds or whether to sheepishly retreat with my tail between my legs.:)

The NT does have some external evidence in other documents and in archeology.
But you can't say the same thing about the resurrection.

Evidence from multiple lines of concurrent inquiry is the best case but it's not always available. In those situations, don't most historians only make provisional claims?
Well actually most historians make their careers by making over-reaching, over-dramatic claims ! Provisional claims don't sell many books. But I know what you mean . . .
Allow me to put a fine point on it. Whether historians over-reach is irrelevant to whether the claims they make are reasonable or not.

and I agree that multiple corroborating sources are preferable, and that is what you find in the Gospels.
But what about the resurrection. And, by the way, the *independent* corroborating source is crucial, too. Not just a few people who know each other, etc.

Surely the real question about oral history is to determine if it is reliable or not ?
Why do you think the oral history which underpins the Gospel accounts is historically (as opposed to mythically) accurate?
I don't think there is sufficient time between the events claimed and the Gospel accounts to allow for the development of such a myth. Can you name another myth with such public elements ( crowds of 5000 people ) that developed and was established in such a short time ?
That O.J. was innocent. That JFK was killed by [fill in the blank]. Any popular misconception.

Rinzler's first law: people will believe any fool thing.

[HeWhoAsks]

- Does the document have external verification
- Does the document have internal evidence to support its reliability
- Do we know the document has been reliably copied and transmitted in its original form
- Do eye-witness accounts have corroborating evidence

And I want to add

- Is there another credible explanation for the document other than it being reliable.
Not sure about this one. The absence of another explanation is not evidence for a certain explanation. Because you can't limit the choices to just two, how can you assign the increased probability to one of them? To prove something, you need evidence for it, not just a lack of evidence against one of its alternatives. Unless you limit things by saying "between these two alternatives, A is more likely than B."

[thomas]

I disagree. Much of what we accept as ancient history relies on eyewitness accounts, recorded in documents some time after the event by those involved or people who gathered data from them.
If you could give some examples, I could decide whether to cackle in glee over how I will rip your argument to shreds or whether to sheepishly retreat with my tail between my legs.:)
For example, much of the political history of the Romans and the Greeks.

The NT does have some external evidence in other documents and in archeology.
But you can't say the same thing about the resurrection.
What archeological evidence could there be ? There is some external evidence that Paul's first letters were written around AD55 that show that Christians believed in the resurrection from the earliest days of the faith.

and I agree that multiple corroborating sources are preferable, and that is what you find in the Gospels.
But what about the resurrection. And, by the way, the *independent* corroborating source is crucial, too. Not just a few people who know each other, etc.
Why is it necessarily a problem if the people know each other ? Do you discount the memoirs of the cabinet of a government because the people know each other ? I don't think so. It almost feels like you're trying to set up criteria that you know the biblical accounts will fail, for some reason. It doesn't feel very objective to me.

I don't think there is sufficient time between the events claimed and the Gospel accounts to allow for the development of such a myth. Can you name another myth with such public elements ( crowds of 5000 people ) that developed and was established in such a short time ?
That O.J. was innocent. That JFK was killed by [fill in the blank]. Any popular misconception.

Rinzler's first law: people will believe any fool thing.
But you're not claiming that OJ or JFK are mythical characters are you ? I think that was essentially schemanista's question about the gospels, if I understood it right ?

[thomas]

- Does the document have external verification
- Does the document have internal evidence to support its reliability
- Do we know the document has been reliably copied and transmitted in its original form
- Do eye-witness accounts have corroborating evidence

And I want to add

- Is there another credible explanation for the document other than it being reliable.
Not sure about this one. The absence of another explanation is not evidence for a certain explanation. Because you can't limit the choices to just two, how can you assign the increased probability to one of them? To prove something, you need evidence for it, not just a lack of evidence against one of its alternatives. Unless you limit things by saying "between these two alternatives, A is more likely than B."
Fair point. I think what I'm trying to get at here is that there seems to be an absence of good, well-founded theories as to how Christianity arose that fits all the evidence, other than the straight-forwards explanation.

[whoneedscience]

Seriously, I need help from some more historical types here who know of what they speak. Anyone?
I don't pretend to be a historical type, but I do remember taking a class once with a focus on hermeneutics (although it was taught by a priest, I kid you not). From what I remember, you have to consider the authors intent, and the initial acceptance of the audience as well as its internal characteristics. Ergo:

-do the authors have ulterior motives (such as a desire to fulfill the prophecies, be associated with the divine)
-would the people at the time have interpreted things differently due to language changes or other cultural differences (such as the meaning of the word miracle as "a wonderous thing" instead of "an impossible thing")

[HeWhoAsks]

I disagree. Much of what we accept as ancient history relies on eyewitness accounts, recorded in documents some time after the event by those involved or people who gathered data from them.
If you could give some examples, I could decide whether to cackle in glee over how I will rip your argument to shreds or whether to sheepishly retreat with my tail between my legs.:)
For example, much of the political history of the Romans and the Greeks.
But much of that is verified by independent sources. For instance, the murder of Ceasar is not only evidenced by eyewitnesses, but by many many other people who weren't there but who were influenced by the repercussions apart from and prior to whatever belief they might have eventually held as to whether Ceasar was really murdered. The same is not true of the early Christians. Their were no objective repercussions to the resurrection; people only believed it based on what other people said happened at the grave.

The NT does have some external evidence in other documents and in archeology.
But you can't say the same thing about the resurrection.
What archeological evidence could there be ?
But that's exactly my point. Without external independent corroboration, it's hard to believe because people can make up any dang thing for any number of reasons, other gullible types buy it hook line and sinker, and it now has a life of its own, regardless of the truth of it.

There is some external evidence that Paul's first letters were written around AD55 that show that Christians believed in the resurrection from the earliest days of the faith.
Belief that something is true is never evidence for it being true.

and I agree that multiple corroborating sources are preferable, and that is what you find in the Gospels.
But what about the resurrection. And, by the way, the *independent* corroborating source is crucial, too. Not just a few people who know each other, etc.
Why is it necessarily a problem if the people know each other ? Do you discount the memoirs of the cabinet of a government because the people know each other ? I don't think so. It almost feels like you're trying to set up criteria that you know the biblical accounts will fail, for some reason. It doesn't feel very objective to me.
Because of bias! Do you have any idea how many different ways people can fool themselves? Go to http://skepdic.com/ for a summary. If you have independent observers, you lessen the chance that the same type of bias will occur.

I don't think there is sufficient time between the events claimed and the Gospel accounts to allow for the development of such a myth. Can you name another myth with such public elements ( crowds of 5000 people ) that developed and was established in such a short time ?
That O.J. was innocent. That JFK was killed by [fill in the blank]. Any popular misconception.

Rinzler's first law: people will believe any fool thing.
But you're not claiming that OJ or JFK are mythical characters are you ? I think that was essentially schemanista's question about the gospels, if I understood it right ?
*My* point is that people will believe any damn (sorry) thing. Go to http://www.snopes.com/.

[Philboid Studge]

I don't think there is sufficient time between the events claimed and the Gospel accounts to allow for the development of such a myth. Can you name another myth with such public elements ( crowds of 5000 people ) that developed and was established in such a short time ?
Here's a thought: Maybe the myth evolved quickly because it absorbed elements of pre-existing myths, rather than develop them on its own. That would make Christianity the Borg of religion. (Please don't call me an 'ignorant twat.')

[schemanista]

I don't think there is sufficient time between the events claimed and the Gospel accounts to allow for the development of such a myth.
What if if started as a syncretization of existing myths and accreted its historicity in response to competing mythical interpretations? I'm not asking you to take that as a statement of fact, because the "evidence" chain for this position is long and detailed, but that's basically my position.

The Gospels were written to establish an orthodox center around which Christianity could accrete. I consider them hagiographies and at this, they were wildly successful.

Can you name another myth with such public elements ( crowds of 5000 people ) that developed and was established in su