Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Obvious Leo]

Personally, I think my fruitloopery better fits the facts than yours and that gravity is due to refraction.

Our respective fruitlooperies have more in common than you think because in my version gravitational lensing is exactly the same phenomenon as the bent stick in the water which we all know from high school science. Refraction is an observer effect which is apparent because the speed of light is not a constant and thus when light passes through a gravitational field it slows down because time slows down relative to a distant observer. No aether needed.

[uwot]

Refraction is an observer effect which is apparent because the speed of light is not a constant and thus when light passes through a gravitational field it slows down because time slows down relative to a distant observer. No aether needed.

We both know what refraction is, Leo. I think the difference between us is that you are content to believe that "Gravity just IS", whereas I suspect there is a mechanism that is responsible for it.

[Obvious Leo]

I think the difference between us is that you are content to believe that "Gravity just IS", whereas I suspect there is a mechanism that is responsible for it.

How long is long enough to try and come up with such a mechanism? For 400 years some of the smartest minds in human history have been focused on this question for no result whatsoever. Give it up, mate, and hoist the white flag of defeat. Gravity/time is the ding an sich.

[uwot]

Give it up, mate, and hoist the white flag of defeat. Gravity/time is the ding an sich.

You are asking me to believe in something I can't see and can't explain. It's not my style.

[Obvious Leo]

Give it up, mate, and hoist the white flag of defeat. Gravity/time is the ding an sich.

You are asking me to believe in something I can't see and can't explain. It's not my style.

Tut tut. Science is not about belief. Science is about conjecture and refutation.

[Dubious]

Whenever physics assumes a "ding an sich" it becomes philosophy and invariably screws up. In physics such a priories reveal and explain absolutely nothing...a self imposed dead end.

[Obvious Leo]

That physics has managed to screw up somewhere is hardly breaking news. For a century it's been relying on models which flat out contradict each other and collectively describe a universe which makes no fucking sense. Perhaps sacking the philosophers from Natural Philosophy wasn't such a clever move after all.

[Immanuel Can]

Modus Ponens

Premise 1) If the resurrection of Christ is based on two or three eyewitness accounts over 2000 years ago, then there isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.

Premise 2) The resurrection is based on two or three eyewitness accounts from over 2000 years ago.

Conclusion: There isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Premise 1) If the killing of Georgie was witnessed by only three men, three minutes ago, there isn't enough evidence to warrant belief in the death.

Premise 2) The killing of Georgie was based on three eyewitness accounts from over 3 minutes ago.

Conclusion: There isn't enough evidence to warrant belief in the killing of Georgie.

Why hasn't anyone noticed the huge logical fallacy? Namely, that time is not a relevant concern in matters of truth. That which was true three minutes ago, or true three millennia ago, will be true tomorrow. And that which was not true then will not become true by the magic of time passage.

I could add that the resurrection was eyewitnessed by more than 500 people (1 Cor. 15:6), according to the Biblical record itself. Add to that the fact that the resurrection, if it were not genuine, would surely be the most easily refutable kind of lie: the Romans or Pharisees would just produce the body. Moreover, the assumption of this post has to be that all the early martyrs died for what they knew to be a lie: and what possibly could they hope to gain? None in this life, for sure, since they were going to die: but none in any afterlife, since they then couldn't possibly believe in the resurrection!

I have no previous knowledge of the poster of this strand, but he/she obviously didn't bother to read either the Bible or the responses of intelligent Christians who have dealt with this sort of transparently bad argument since the birth of Christianity itself, and have refuted it so comprehensively that I hardly need to bother here. We can just point to the literature.

[David Handeye]

Obviously Christianity fails in terms of evidence, whoever christian should be such for evidences? Resurrection has nothing to do with evidence, only with faith, and faith has nothing of evident.

[Immanuel Can]

You've been misinformed.

Christianity does not use evidences if one is a Fideist, meaning one who denies that evidence can be relevant to faith. That describes only a few radical Charismatic or populist groups. Most of the Christian spectrum, including me, is not Fideist. They use all kinds of evidence, and in fact rejoice in using evidence.

Go ask Aquinas, or Pascal, or Newton, or Lewis, or Plantinga, or any other number of very scholarly Christians today. They all embrace the use of evidence.

[thedoc]

Why hasn't anyone noticed the huge logical fallacy? Namely, that time is not a relevant concern in matters of truth. That which was true three minutes ago, or true three millennia ago, will be true tomorrow. And that which was not true then will not become true by the magic of time passage.

I could add that the resurrection was eyewitnessed by more than 500 people (1 Cor. 15:6), according to the Biblical record itself. Add to that the fact that the resurrection, if it were not genuine, would surely be the most easily refutable kind of lie: the Romans or Pharisees would just produce the body. Moreover, the assumption of this post has to be that all the early martyrs died for what they knew to be a lie: and what possibly could they hope to gain? None in this life, for sure, since they were going to die: but none in any afterlife, since they then couldn't possibly believe in the resurrection!

I have no previous knowledge of the poster of this strand, but he/she obviously didn't bother to read either the Bible or the responses of intelligent Christians who have dealt with this sort of transparently bad argument since the birth of Christianity itself, and have refuted it so comprehensively that I hardly need to bother here. We can just point to the literature.

A few days ago I was listening to a radio program and the host of the show was going over the several counter arguments to the resurrection and explained how each refutation was harder to believe than the resurrection itself. I was in the car at the time and was not able to take notes, so I cant recount each of the refutations that were countered. One that I can remember was a listing of the injuries that Jesus had sustained, and the claim was that he wasn't really dead, but revived after 3 days without food and water, rolled a 1 ton stone our of the way, and over powered or eluded several Roman guards. That one was certainly harder to believe than the actual resurrection.

[uwot]

Why hasn't anyone noticed the huge logical fallacy? Namely, that time is not a relevant concern in matters of truth. That which was true three minutes ago, or true three millennia ago, will be true tomorrow.

Because there isn't one. If three people tell you that Georgie was killed over three minutes ago, there is no more reason to believe that than any story from three millenia ago.

[Obvious Leo]

Let me just get this straight, because I can hardly believe I'm reading this in a philosophy forum. The proposition is that two thousand years ago a dead bloke came to life again and then rose holus bolus into the sky. In the 21st century a group of intelligent and mostly well-read people are discussing whether this is a true story or not. Does that about sum it up or am I missing something?

[Dubious]

One that I can remember was a listing of the injuries that Jesus had sustained, and the claim was that he wasn't really dead, but revived after 3 days without food and water, rolled a 1 ton stone our of the way, and over powered or eluded several Roman guards. That one was certainly harder to believe than the actual resurrection.

...I always though it was one of the Wallmart angels - low pay for a tough job - who performed those deeds! All Jesus had to do is stand up and move on!

[Immanuel Can]

A few days ago I was listening to a radio program and the host of the show was going over the several counter arguments to the resurrection and explained how each refutation was harder to believe than the resurrection itself...

Judging by uwot's comment, no historical facts are to be accepted. But I'm going to assume he's merely being wry, since that is clearly an unlivable conclusion. If we do decide to take any historical facts seriously, then the historicity of these events would surely be worthy of careful historical analysis, not mere dismissal, if for no other reason than that conclusions one way or other play for such practical stakes.

But thinking these things through is an intellectual activity, and dismissing them is just a hobby; so I think more people do the latter than the former.