|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 12, 2023 18:19:01 GMT
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!” This isn't an atheist argument exclusively. Almost everyone is going to agree that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!” The difference is that the theists find the evidence extraordinary and the atheists don't. So there is a subjective component to this, as with many things. The point is that we have certain things that verifiably exist in reality and are relatively mundane and then unverifiable claims that we don't know exist and aren't mundane. An example is if you tell me you had eggs for breakfast that isn't an extraordinary claim and can be reasonably accepted just by someone telling you they ate eggs for breakfast. If that same person tells you that gnomes have been stealing their underpants, most people are going to require extraordinary evidence for that. Or something far less silly like aliens have visited Earth. Testimony won't be enough for most people to believe that claim. You need to show that aliens exist first before testimony should be accepted about what aliens have done.I'll address the rest later if I feel like it.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 12, 2023 18:27:01 GMT
“There are 45000 Christian denominations. Y’all can’t even agree amongst yourselves!” That is a ridiculous exaggeration, but if the atheist was using a more reasonable number the point is that it makes Christianity very contradictory and God a poor communicator.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 12, 2023 18:31:44 GMT
“There’s just no evidence!” No evidence tends to mean insufficient evidence. There is certainly evidence, even if it is insufficient. We use evidence in court all the time that is used to tie a person to a crime. It is still evidence, but the person might not be guilty of the crime. Evidence can also be misinterpreted. Testimony is evidence, but it tends to be some of the least reliable evidence.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 12, 2023 18:40:35 GMT
“Philosophical arguments aren’t good enough, you need empirical evidence!” That is just true. Philosophical arguments are exactly that...arguments. Arguments can't prove anything outside of logical conclusions. An argument alone would never be good enough to prove the existence of something and structured logical arguments need to be both valid and sound. This why the Cosmological arguments don't work. The first premise can't be proven, though I think the first premise is reasonable to accept and the conclusion doesn't prove a God, it just proves a cause.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 12, 2023 18:42:47 GMT
“Yeah well Jesus probably never even existed!” That is just lazy on the atheist's part. Nobody cares whether you think Jesus probably didn't exist. The atheist needs to back that up somehow and they won't be able to.
It is reasonable for the atheist to be unconvinced that Jesus existed, but to claim Jesus probably didn't exist needs more than just saying "I am unconvinced." Nobody should care what any one individual is unconvinced of.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 12, 2023 18:54:54 GMT
“The Bible is hopelessly contradictory!” Maybe, but that needs to be backed up by arguments and interpretation is important. Again that is lazy on the part of the atheist.
“In order to use God as an explanation for something, you first have to establish that such a being exists!” In order for a person to reasonably use anything as an explanation they must first establish the existence of that thing. "A unicorn stabbed my neighbor with it's horn" is an explanation for a hole in my neighbor's chest that caused his death but in order for anyone to accept that as a possible cause of death they definitely need to prove unicorns exist first. Basically if someone is just asserting a cause without demonstrating the thing that is the cause even exists then they shouldn't expect anyone to reasonably accept their explanation. That is the point of my unicorn analogy.All done.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 15, 2023 23:30:55 GMT
“So what if the Bible accurately features historical places. New York City is depicted in the Spider-man movies, doesn’t mean Spider-Man is real!” I'll go one at a time. This argument is only used when a Christian mentions that one of the reasons they believe the Bible to be true in all areas is because it includes things we know are true in some areas. Saying that "the Bible has real places described means that is a good reason to believe all the events and characters in the Bible are real" is a LOGICAL FALLACY.
This is a straw man argument though. I don’t know any Christian who makes that leap. Most simply assert the accurate depiction of places and certain events supports the historical context of the gospels and the trustworthiness of the writers. And the evidence both from secular history, as well as the Bible, support the facts that Jesus performed certain mysterious acts that lead to many believing in and following Him and earning him a renown reputation across that region of the world. That he was put to death on a cross and that His tomb was empty 3 days later.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 15, 2023 23:36:09 GMT
This is a straw man argument though. I don’t know any Christian who makes that leap. Most simply assert the accurate depiction of places and certain events supports the historical context of the gospels and the trustworthiness of the writers. And the evidence both from secular history, as well as the Bible, support the facts that Jesus performed certain mysterious acts that lead to many believing in and following Him and earning him a renown reputation across that region of the world. That he was put to death on a cross and that His tomb was empty 3 days later. If you have never heard a Christian make that argument you haven't listened to many Christian apologists and no, it does not support the trustworthiness of the writers.
It can't be a strawman when it is a response to a Christian who actually says it.
I listen to Christians argue with atheists on a regular basis. It is sort of a hobby of mine learning about this stuff and listening to theist vs. atheist debates and discussions.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 15, 2023 23:47:19 GMT
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!” This isn't an atheist argument exclusively. Almost everyone is going to agree that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!” The difference is that the theists find the evidence extraordinary and the atheists don't. So there is a subjective component to this, as with many things. The point is that we have certain things that verifiably exist in reality and are relatively mundane and then unverifiable claims that we don't know exist and aren't mundane. An example is if you tell me you had eggs for breakfast that isn't an extraordinary claim and can be reasonably accepted just by someone telling you they ate eggs for breakfast. If that same person tells you that gnomes have been stealing their underpants, most people are going to require extraordinary evidence for that. Or something far less silly like aliens have visited Earth. Testimony won't be enough for most people to believe that claim. You need to show that aliens exist first before testimony should be accepted about what aliens have done.I'll address the rest later if I feel like it. Define extraordinary?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 15, 2023 23:49:52 GMT
I'll address the rest later if I feel like it. Define extraordinary? Something that has not been verified to exist or be likely. I would have thought my examples would have been understood. Yeah, of course people who already believe that a God exists aren't going to find the claims extraordinary. That is obvious.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 15, 2023 23:55:56 GMT
If you have never heard a Christian make that argument you haven't listened to many Christian apologists and no, it does not support the trustworthiness of the writers. A Christian claiming that because the Bible reports that Jerusalem existed or that such a such king ruled at such and such time proves that Jesus walked on water and was divine? Literally never heard it before. That’s good. Can you point me to credible Christian scholar who makes the claim you’re accusing them of?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 15, 2023 23:57:34 GMT
A Christian claiming that because the Bible reports that Jerusalem existed or that such a such king ruled at such and such time proves that Jesus walked on water and was divine? Literally never heard it before. That’s good. Can you point me to credible Christian scholar who makes the claim you’re accusing them of? What are you even talking about? I am talking about average Christians, not scholars. Nobody said anything about scholars.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 15, 2023 23:59:25 GMT
What are you even talking about? I am talking about average Christians, not scholars. Nobody said anything about scholars. So basically you’re arguing from anecdotes and can’t support your claim?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 16, 2023 0:02:05 GMT
So basically you’re arguing from anecdotes and can’t support your claim? This is a mundane claim. If you don't believe that some random Christians make dumb arguments I can't help you. Also, I don't care whether you believe me or not.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 16, 2023 0:03:34 GMT
Something that has not been verified to exist or be likely. I would have thought my examples would have been understood. Yeah, of course people who already believe that a God exists aren't going to find the claims extraordinary. That is obvious. Is that your own subjective definition? Because I don’t think that’s the standard meaning.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 16, 2023 0:04:25 GMT
Something that has not been verified to exist or be likely. I would have thought my examples would have been understood. Yeah, of course people who already believe that a God exists aren't going to find the claims extraordinary. That is obvious. Is that your own subjective definition? Because I don’t think that’s standard meaning. Extraordinary. Something not ordinary. Space aliens have not been verified to exist therefor claiming they have visited Earth is an extraordinary claim. It is making a claim about something not ordinary.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 16, 2023 0:10:01 GMT
Is that your own subjective definition? Because I don’t think that’s standard meaning. Extraordinary. Something not ordinary. Well murders and rapes aren’t really “ordinary” events considering that out of billions of daily human interactions they rarely ordinarily occur. Wouldn’t that make them extraordinary according to your latest definition?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 16, 2023 0:12:40 GMT
Extraordinary. Something not ordinary. Well murders and rapes aren’t really “ordinary” events considering that out of billions of daily human interactions they rarely ordinarily occur. Wouldn’t that make them extraordinary according to your latest definition? Murders and rapes are most definitely ordinary. We know for certain they happen and they happen often. Don't be obtuse.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 16, 2023 0:19:10 GMT
Well murders and rapes aren’t really “ordinary” events considering that out of billions of daily human interactions they rarely ordinarily occur. Wouldn’t that make them extraordinary according to your latest definition? Murders and rapes are most definitely ordinary. We know for certain they happen and they happen often. Don't be obtuse. How can they be ordinary when they rarely occur given the billions of daily human interactions on a daily basis?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 16, 2023 0:42:13 GMT
Murders and rapes are most definitely ordinary. We know for certain they happen and they happen often. Don't be obtuse. How can they be ordinary when they rarely occur given the billions of daily human interactions on a daily basis? Okay, I'll play along. Homicide is extra ordinary in a sense. If I call the cops and tell them I saw a murder, they are going to rightfully need evidence/proof that a murder happened and that I was witness to it. The extraordinary evidence in a sense is me showing them the body with a bullet hole in the back of the head. Me bringing them some other person who saw the murder and then 2 other people saying the saw the murder but no body they would be right to question whether we are sincere or not and maybe that we are delusional or were fooled somehow. I truly ordinary claim is that I saw someone walking their dog. Nobody would have reason to suspect I was lying or mistaken about that, nor would they care if I was. Nobody needs evidence for my claim I saw that. In fact it would be extraordinary if someone said "I need evidence for that claim besides just you telling me you saw it."
|
|