Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[uwot]

...if 2,000 years turns a belief unsupportable, then 3 minutes will do the same trick. Nothing about the time difference is relevant to truth-value. That was the whole point.

You and I are not disagreeing about that.

Indeed, the very point I was making is that a belief based on hearsay is unsound, regardless of its vintage. The arguments you present in support of your beliefs are predicated on hearsay (we can analyse your a priori arguments too, if we must, but to save time, they are worthless). That you choose to believe is entirely your prerogative, but there is no empirical evidence to support what you wish were true, nor any logical necessity. You happen to believe, others don't.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course the miraculous can only happen if there is a miracle-worker.

If I've made an error in logic then so have you because you're merely repeating exactly what I said.

Actually, no.

I was pointing out that you'd mislabeled an obvious truth as it it were some kind of extraordinary claim, then celebrated as if you'd discovered something beyond the normal. But as I pointed out, it's not in any way more unjust to say that a miracle requires a Miracle Worker than it would be unfairly circular to say that engineering requires engineers. Any of what you call "circularity" is entirely justified in both cases.

Your discovery of the necessity of an agent in the production of an agent-effect was apparently surprising to you in some way -- not to me, nor, I suspect, to anyone else.

I was not joining in your error: I was attempting to make it clear to you.

[Obvious Leo]

You are claiming that a person, once dead, cannot come back to live, so it is up to you to prove that claim. There are numerous accounts of people who have been pronounced dead, and later came beck to life.

Being pronounced dead is not the same thing as being dead, doc, just as a miracle being pronounced is not the same thing as a miracle being performed. In biology death is defined as the cessation of life and as an irreversible process. No counter-example has ever been observed in nature because life and death are mutually exclusive definitional terms. If you prefer to apply non-standard meanings to your terms then you're effectively having a conversation by yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

Indeed, the very point I was making is that a belief based on hearsay is unsound, regardless of its vintage.

Not so. There is a difference between "hearsay" and "testimony." The former is not allowed in a court of law, but the latter is the most crucial source of legal evidence. First-hand, eyewitness testimony is not "hearsay." By definition, it's testimonial evidence.

there is no empirical evidence

Untrue. Again, I refer you to both my comments previously and to the abundant literature on that topic. You may read it or pretend it does not exist as you wish.

[Obvious Leo]

Your discovery of the necessity of an agent in the production of an agent-effect was apparently surprising to you in some way -- not to me, nor, I suspect, to anyone else.

The word "obvious" in my username is no accident. I was pointing out the bloody obvious flaw in your argument which any half-wit could detect and you confirmed it. Miracles cannot occur unless the existence of a miracle-worker is accepted as an a priori assumption.

[Obvious Leo]

The former is not allowed in a court of law, but the latter is the most crucial source of legal evidence. First-hand, eyewitness testimony is not "hearsay." By definition, it's testimonial evidence.

If a witness in a court of law claims to have seen a bloke rise from the dead and then float up into the sky then the court should accept this as a true representation of an event. Is this what you're saying?

In fact you're full of shit, IC. Eyewitness testimony is practically worthless in every system of jurisprudence in the world.

[Immanuel Can]

In biology death is defined as the cessation of life and as an irreversible process.

The first part of this statement is true; the second is debatable, even in modern medicine. But even were it *ordinarily* true, it would not cover miracles of resurrection, if such were to happen. Surely that ought to be obvious.

No counter-example has ever been observed in nature because life and death are mutually exclusive definitional terms.

Observation about natural regularities do not cover supernatural situations -- assuming, again, such exist. There is no "definitional" exclusion of resurrection. "Dead" does not analytically require the addition "and not capable of coming back."

Admittedly, though, on some sides there may be an obdurate, presuppositional refusal to entertain the possibility regardless of the evidence. That is possible.

[Immanuel Can]

If a witness in a court of law claims to have seen a bloke rise from the dead and then float up into the sky then the court should accept this as a true representation of an event. Is this what you're saying?

If many reliable witnesses report something, then the dismissal of their testimony requires a counterbalancing weight of contrary evidence. That too is basic jurisprudence.

The testimony of two or three witnesses can send a man to prison for life, or even to a death sentence, in some places. I would say that testimony is taken rather seriously in court, provided the sources are reliable.

[Immanuel Can]

Miracles cannot occur unless the existence of a miracle-worker is accepted as an a priori assumption.

Not quite: they could occur without the assumption, but their occurrence would signal something: it would constitute proof for the Miracle Worker.

That is to say, an a priori assumption of the existence of a Miracle Worker would naturally lead one to expect a miracle or two, it's true. But also, the verified existence of a real miracle would be significant evidence of the existence of a Miracle Worker. That's also obvious.

On the flip side, the possibility of miracles cannot be denied without the non-existence of a Miracle Worker as an a priori assumption.

However, consider the impossibility of providing evidence for "no Miracle Worker."

[Obvious Leo]

IC. The naivety of your argument is breathtaking but arguing with a believer in the supernatural is an unworthy exercise in philosophy. I wish you joy of your delusions but not too many people here will fail to see that they are not underpinned by any accepted system of formal logic.

[Immanuel Can]

IC. The naivety of your argument is breathtaking but arguing with a believer in the supernatural is an unworthy exercise in philosophy. I wish you joy of your delusions but not too many people here will fail to see that they are not underpinned by any accepted system of formal logic.

You are again incorrect. But everyone has the right and freedom to choose what he is prepared to see -- and also the responsibility for ignoring the available evidence.

When we stand before God, "I didn't know" will be a poor excuse. We did know. Or we could have known, but weren't prepared to look.

Consider this: if I'm right about the resurrection of that one Man, Jesus Christ, then resurrection is for you too. When it happens, you will stand before the One whose resurrection you have here denied, and give your account. And I tell you that not in spite, but rather in all kindness.

Consider your situation carefully. It matters very little what you think of me. It matters absolutely what you think of Him.

[thedoc]

You are claiming that a person, once dead, cannot come back to live, so it is up to you to prove that claim. There are numerous accounts of people who have been pronounced dead, and later came beck to life.

Being pronounced dead is not the same thing as being dead, doc, just as a miracle being pronounced is not the same thing as a miracle being performed. In biology death is defined as the cessation of life and as an irreversible process. No counter-example has ever been observed in nature because life and death are mutually exclusive definitional terms. If you prefer to apply non-standard meanings to your terms then you're effectively having a conversation by yourself.

So you are saying that being pronounced dead may only be temporary, and actually being dead is a permanent condition? In that case you must prove that being dead is, in fact, a permanent condition, and that the medical profession is incorrect when they pronounce someone dead. Also where in the definition of death does it exclude coming back to life.

[Obvious Leo]

IC. The naivety of your argument is breathtaking but arguing with a believer in the supernatural is an unworthy exercise in philosophy. I wish you joy of your delusions but not too many people here will fail to see that they are not underpinned by any accepted system of formal logic.

You are again incorrect. But everyone has the right and freedom to choose what he is prepared to see -- and also the responsibility for ignoring the available evidence.

When we stand before God, "I didn't know" will be a poor excuse. We did know. Or we could have known, but weren't prepared to look.

Consider this: if I'm right about the resurrection of that one Man, Jesus Christ, then resurrection is for you too. When it happens, you will stand before the One whose resurrection you have here denied, and give your account. And I tell you that not in spite, but rather in all kindness.

Consider your situation carefully. It matters very little what you think of me. It matters absolutely what you think of Him.

Take your soap-box to the park and preach your nonsense there, you sanctimonious turd. This is a philosophy forum, not a fucking pulpit, and such insulting behaviour is completely out of order.

[Obvious Leo]

So you are saying that being pronounced dead may only be temporary, and actually being dead is a permanent condition?

The medical definition of death has varied considerably over the years and is by no means consistent across different cultures. However the semantic definition in biology has always been the same. In biology death means unable to be revivified.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Master wordsmith says all you need to know on this Topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5v42jtet5c