| Subject: Much ado about nothing |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/ 1/03 12:34pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "A response" on 08/29/03 11:52pm
>
>There is some evidence, none you would believe to be
>sufficient of course. One method of justification is
>to show that things like the New Testament are
>historically reliable documents, and that if one had
>no bias against the supernatural and or if the
>supernatural elements were removed, even most atheists
>would accept them as genuine. Certain
>non-supernatural facets could be used to support the
>Christian faith, and eventually the “word of God”
>thing in general. (For instance, trying to find an
>alternate explanation other than the Resurrection.)
I suppose you could do the same thing with the Odyssey and the Illiad. I wouldn't be prepared to believe in Zeus and his friends based on historical accuracy alone(otherwise I'd be a believer). Would you?
>
>>I will take brief pause here and address the issue of
>>prophecy before it even becomes an issue. Prophecy
>>without a specific time frame is useless.
>
>Oh I wouldn’t say that.
>
>Consider this hypothetical case. There is an event in
>Christian eschatology known as the Rapture, where in
>the twinkling of an eye millions of people
>(Christians, though some have speculated that children
>below the age of accountability would be included as
>well) vanish without a trace of their bodies. Cars
>suddenly become unmanned, a few planes might crash
>because their pilots are gone, people suddenly
>disappearing right in front of security cameras,
>credible witnesses etc. Suppose this otherwise
>enormously unlikely event actually happens, and also
>suppose (which would be in fact true) it was predicted
>in advance. This would seem (to me at least) to be
>overwhelming evidence. But would you believe the cause
>of this to be the Christian God?
>
>But suppose this is only the beginning. Let's say
>other otherwise unlikely (yet predicted in advance)
>events happen. Try and really picture yourself
>actually walking down the sidewalk, driving your car
>etc. and witnessing these events happen. There is a
>great earthquake, and the sky and the sun turn black
>as sackcloth (i.e. a sky with daylight suddenly turns
>black), and the moon turns blood red. Many shooting
>stars fall from the sky. How about then?
>
>Sometime after the above plague, hail and fire,
>perhaps mixed with something else looking like blood,
>fall from the sky and burned up a portion of the land,
>including the trees and the green grass. How about
>then?
>
>Sometime after the above plagues, a significant
>fraction of the seas turn to blood (Revelation says
>one third, but I feel that number may be symbolic).
>Some of the creatures in the seas die, and some of the
>ships sink to their doom. How about then?
>
>Sometime after those plagues, the moonlight,
>starlight, and sunlight are struck; the hours of
>daylight shortened, with the sun and the moon and the
>stars not giving as much as light as they once did.
>How about then?
>
>The fact that such events were not given a specific
>date still doesn’t change the evidence. Predictions
>without a date specified may not be capable of being
>proved false, but they can be proven true. If you
>would still dismiss these predictions, how would you
>account for the evidence? Would you really believe it
>had all been a coincidence?
Below my date statement I also said this: "I am willing to accept prophecy as evidence provided that it is specific and detailed--the kind of prophecy that I would expect from nothing less than a deity, and not some two bit psychic, or perceptive observer."
If it be the case that your hypothetical example happened in exactly the way the Bible lays it out, I'd accept it as evidence. My date statement was more in reference to the more mundane "prophecies". I'm not willing to accept a statement like "There will be earthquakes and famine." as evidence. I'm also not willing to accept similies and metaphors as evidence without some kind of date, as much can be read into them.
>
>
>>I'm willing to accept the Bible is the word of God
>>provided someone can present cogent positive evidence
>>(for the claim that one single book alone is the word
>>of God is an extraordinary claim that requires
>>extraordinary evidence) for that claim.
>
>Even this is disputable. The philosophical principle
>“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
>suffers some serious epistemological problems. One of
>them is what’s extraordinary for one may not seem so
>extraordinary for another, like the Bible being the
>word of God. You may find it an “extraordinary”
>claim, but for some it’s mundane as the existence of
>Abraham Lincoln.
That may be, but this puts you in a spot where you not only are willing to admit the possibility of the Bible being true, but also the possibility that every madman who claims he is Jesus IS actually Jesus, or every madman who claims that the world is conspiring against him is actually being conspired against. It's a relativistic stance that no one (unless they happen to be in an insane asylum) holds to be true in reality because it's impratical and would thrust the holder quickly into madness.
So, for the sake of argument. Let's talk about YOUR personal beliefs and not some faceless "some". After all, I'm delineating what I personally would accept. What is the criteria for something to be extraordinary to YOU? Not Joe Blow down the street, or some epistemological theory that would apply globally. I'm not talking globally. I'm talking locally.
>A lot easier. One could criticize as your
>standards being biased and unreasonably high,
>irrationally applying double standards, failing to
>recognize an appropriate level of satisfactory
>evidence etc.
Where? Please point these out to me.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 