Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[psstein]

You would not need to read any books for the evidence for evolution if the proponents of evolution based their belief regarding the mechanism of evolution on a silly superstition that has no evidence to support it.

Just as I do not need to read a two volume work that explains why oxygenated castor oil or some other snake oil cures cancer, when it provides no scientific studies to support it, only anecdotal testimonies, I do not need to read Keneer's book if he did not independently verify the claims. I am not going to spend the money and massive effort to verify the extraordinary claims of Keneer just because Keneer was too lazy and too sloppy to do it himself.

First, stop the nonsense about "silly superstition." If you're not going to actually engage and instead throw thinly veiled insults, get off the forum and go somewhere else. I have all the time in the world for people who actually want to discuss. I have no time for people who dismiss things out of hand.

Keener did verify some of them himself. Maybe you need to read the book before you make stupid claims.

If you follow your epistemological nightmare, you can't know anything of history or science.

[psstein]

And by the way, Gary, I don't want my posts on your blog.

[Gary]

First, stop the nonsense about "silly superstition." If you're not going to actually engage and instead throw thinly veiled insults, get off the forum and go somewhere else. I have all the time in the world for people who actually want to discuss. I have no time for people who dismiss things out of hand.

Keener did verify some of them himself. Maybe you need to read the book before you make stupid claims.

If you follow your epistemological nightmare, you can't know anything of history or science.

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Stein, I didn't refer to YOUR theory as silly. I used that word in describing a hypothetical belief in evolution based on silly evidence, such as that aliens control the process of natural selection from their control center on Jupiter.


I asked you and Nick if Keneer independently verified any of the claims and neither one of you responded. I assumed the answer was "no". So if Keneer did investigate some of the claims, please provide just one of the authenticated claims so that we can all evaluate it.

[Gary]

First, stop the nonsense about "silly superstition." If you're not going to actually engage and instead throw thinly veiled insults, get off the forum and go somewhere else. I have all the time in the world for people who actually want to discuss. I have no time for people who dismiss things out of hand.

Keener did verify some of them himself. Maybe you need to read the book before you make stupid claims.

If you follow your epistemological nightmare, you can't know anything of history or science.

My epistemology is exactly the same as that of Dr. Johnson, a professor of Philosophy. So are you inferring that Dr. Johnson's epistemology is a "nightmare"? If so, please explain.

[One Bad Pig]

My epistemology is exactly the same as that of Dr. Johnson, a professor of Philosophy. So are you inferring that Dr. Johnson's epistemology is a "nightmare"? If so, please explain.

Gary,

Why are you relying on a philosopher when you think philosophy is bunk?

[Gary]

Gary,

Why are you relying on a philosopher when you think philosophy is bunk?

If your opponent believes that Warren Buffet is god when it comes to investing, the best way to win your opponent to your position is to show him that Warren Buffet agrees with your position on the financial question being debated between the two of you.

[Gary]

Here is a statement from a Christian , an author at Credo House blog, why he does not believe Keneer's claims:

From this post on Credo House blog: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ng-an-amputee/• Edited by a Moderator •

I suppose, for now, a good question would be this: do you believe the Moreland story? Why or why not?

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Full Copy/paste is against TWEB decorum. Please stop doing this.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[psstein]

Johnson's argument begs the question.

There's nothing more to it than that.

[One Bad Pig]

If your opponent believes that Warren Buffet is god when it comes to investing, the best way to win your opponent to your position is to show him that Warren Buffet agrees with your position on the financial question being debated between the two of you.

Nobody here thinks that Dr. Johnson is "god when it comes to [philosophy]." And you're not merely using a philosopher to argue against a certain philosophy, but explicitly identifying with his epistemology.

[Gary]

Here is a statement from a Christian , an author at Credo House blog, why he does not believe Keneer's claims:

From this post on Credo House blog: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ng-an-amputee/

Do I believe JP Moreland's claim that some guy's ear (partially) grew back in front of Moreland's very eyes, with blood pouring out spontaneously, enabling the guy to hear once again???

No. Not for one split second.

Why?

Because odds and inductive reasoning predict that Moreland had an hallucination; he was part of a group delusion (they wanted so badly to see something so they did); or he is lying. If his prayers have this power, he should be able to do this "miracle" in front of a group of skeptical doctors and scientists. But guess what? He won't do that, will he? He will come up with every excuse in the book why he can't do that before he admits he was mistaken...or lying.

[Gary]

Johnson's argument begs the question.

There's nothing more to it than that.

Well, I'm sure you know more than the good professor.

[One Bad Pig]

Here is a statement from a Christian , an author at Credo House blog, why he does not believe Keneer's claims:

From this post on Credo House blog: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ng-an-amputee/
<snip blog quote>

You are being less than truthful here, Gary. The author finds it difficult to believe Keener's claims, but does so anyway:

Source: Reclaiming the Mind

J. P. Moreland, however, told a story that has all the makings for my belief. Therefore, I think I believe it. The story was certainly not something that was obscure like back pain. As I mentioned earlier, he related how he watched an ear grow back (at least in part). Moreland is no lightweight uncritical scholar. Over the years he has gained my trust, both through personal interaction with him and via his scholarly writings. He has also had the courage to change his theological position on some things that would otherwise be hard to change. Furthermore, the story itself contains an element of embarrassment in that the ear only grew back partially!

So, I think to myself: He is either lying, misunderstood what he saw, or it happened. Assuming I understood the story he told (and I sometimes doubt that), these are the only three conceivable alternatives. The first two are very hard to believe. Therefore, I think I believe the third.

© Copyright Original Source

[Gary]

What do you mean by independent authentication?

And I'm making perfect sense of Gary's claim. If you claim you have to verify the evidence in each and every claim, you're saying you need direct experience, because eyewitnesses won't cut it. Problem is, if you follow such a claim to its logical conclusion, you know nothing about science or history. You simply can't verify evidence in every single claim.

Wrong. I said nothing of the sort.

I am willing to believe in a miracle cure when I see evidence that has no other, more probable, naturalistic, explanation. If I choose to investigate the claim, I would want to interview the patient, each of her doctors, review the medicals records, inspect for myself all imaging studies, and interview all witnesses. If everything pointed to a miracle, I would accept it. However, if there is even ONE more probable, naturalistic explanation, then by inductive reasoning, I am going to select the more probable explanation.

[William]

What do you mean by independent authentication?

And I'm making perfect sense of Gary's claim. If you claim you have to verify the evidence in each and every claim, you're saying you need direct experience, because eyewitnesses won't cut it. Problem is, if you follow such a claim to its logical conclusion, you know nothing about science or history. You simply can't verify evidence in every single claim.

I dont think so. There is a level of probability.

what takes more evidence to find credible?

A) George Washington Crossed the Delaware on a row boat
B) George Washington Crossed the Delaware by levitation

and even if all accounts said that George Washing flew across the Delaware, we might try to interpret that, as we have more evidence that George could not have flown, despite who might have claimed otherwise. Maybe "fly" was figurative for "moved fast" or maybe he actually crossed the Delaware, but who ever claimed flew was adding that in for propaganda purposes, etc.

you just cant act as if any claimed action is on the same plane as all others. it just doesnt take as much evidence to believe someone walked as it does to believe they flew. Similarly, with the past, we know that something happened. And with History, it's more often cases of, "this likely is the case," in stead of "this is definitely the case," and reported miracles are usually discarded, while still reserving some belief in the more believable and credible parts of what's recorded.

so a claim can stand for evidence at times, unless that claim is outside of the surrounding evidence of our natural lives and what is known. When a claim is too bold and too wild, it needs evidence to support it. because people are capable of claiming all sorts of things.

Believing Alexander the Great stormed Tyre is not on the same level of believe required to believe Jesus awoke from the dead and ascended into heaven.

[One Bad Pig]

Do I believe JP Moreland's claim that some guy's ear (partially) grew back in front of Moreland's very eyes, with blood pouring out spontaneously, enabling the guy to hear once again???

No. Not for one split second.

Why?

Because odds and inductive reasoning predict that Moreland had an hallucination; he was part of a group delusion (they wanted so badly to see something so they did); or he is lying. If his prayers have this power, he should be able to do this "miracle" in front of a group of skeptical doctors and scientists. But guess what? He won't do that, will he? He will come up with every excuse in the book why he can't do that before he admits he was mistaken...or lying. Because I don't think it could have happened, so it didn't.

Fixed that for you.