Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A very good analogy but I'd add to it to say that after you draw the target, instead of throwing one beach ball, you throw 50 trillion. Then not only is it not that amazing that one hit the target, it's practically a certainty


How many times must this be explained to you? A miracle is where something happens that defies the laws of nature. The frequency of occurence is completely irrelevant. As I've already said to you, if Jesus was still around and turned water into wine every single day it would still be a miracle. Yet again when I pointed out the flaw in what you were saying you ignored me and continued to make the same point to someone else! How can you accuse me of not listening and yet continue to say the same things in perpetuity no matter how many times you are corrected?

Because it would be highly inconvenient for him to consider any explanation which casts doubt on his beliefs.

As I said. Fingers in ears and laalaalaa!

Sam: That's the point of miracles though. They are extremely rare. Irrespective of what previous points you may have made. It's due to their lack of frequency that they are even considered miracles.

If someone performed an amazing miracle one time, you would be in complete awe surely.
If someone performed the miracle repeated times, it would eventually be perceived as a normal occurrence.

Again, just because you seem to think to yourself that you have "rebutted" anything that I have said, doesn't mean so in reality or doesn't mean I am convinced. I'm not going to get into a petty argument about who rebutted who. I'm under no coercion to accept anything that you say, I am willing to listen though. That's the way it's going to be.

DeVore: I'm not sure you can embed a playlist in youtube, but some of the stuff I have read in the past has been dialogue of William Lane Craig a Christian philosopher. So check this out if you want to be somewhat open minded about it:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3D7B3E8D08F46A6

Sam Vimes wrote: »

*head explode*

No.it's.****ing.not. Can someone else please tell him as if our non divine explanations mean anything to him

If you want to check my extended reasoning on miracles, read C.S Lewis' Miracles, he explains this rather well and in detail.

I don't know why every discussion on the A&A forum descends into childishness like yours Sam. We are of differing points of views. Perhaps if you didn't always aim for me to ditch my religion, we wouldn't get into these deadlock situations. I'm merely looking for a light discussion, not something that leads to widespread frustration on both sides.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you want to check my extended reasoning on miracles, read C.S Lewis' Miracles, he explains this rather well and in detail.

I don't know why every discussion on the A&A forum descends into childishness like yours Sam. We are of differing points of views. Perhaps if you didn't always aim for me to ditch my religion, we wouldn't get into these deadlock situations. I'm merely looking for a light discussion, not something that leads to widespread frustration on both sides.

It's not differing POV's that is the problem. It's your unwillingness to play the game by fair rules. That's why people get frustrated.

I'm well aware what you are like, though. So it's no surprise to me.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree that "they imagined it" is possible. How 11 people plus 500 witnesses could have all imagined Jesus Christ having raised from the dead is beyond me. How 11 people who had all known Jesus for 3 years could even be remotely mistaken is very unlikely in itself.

By that logic if 500 people say they saw a flying saucer and 11 people were experts in the field of aircraft also agreed you would believe in flying saucers?

Jakkass wrote: »

Then we are to look at the idea that the disciples were all lying. You have to factor in 11 consciences, and more considering that Luke and others of the 70 went with them also. It might well be conceivable that a single person went on their own and managed to suppress their conscience, but to multiply this by more and more numbers surely would be a recipe for disaster. How could these people who knew they were working in the face of death for a lie keep going?

The same way mystics in Indian preform fake operations knowing full well they are tricking people. A lot more than 11 consciences involved. You also have the preachers who perform elaborate tv shows of healing people which have also been known to be faked. Again a lot more than 11 people involved. You also don't have 11 people saying the saw Jesus you have some books that aren't from the 11 people stating the story. Now you can argue that the 4 Gospels were written by 4 disciples within their possible life times but it is likely that these records were written by other people from verbal accounts. These records cannot be said to prove 500 hundred people saw Jesus just that story has said 500 people.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's these questions, that would phase me the most when people argue that the Resurrection couldn't have happened. You would need to explain it very very well through another means how the x in the sequence of events of the Resurrection I provided in a different thread could have linked through to spreading the Gospel across the world with conviction if they knew it was a lie. Sam Vimes attempted to do this earlier, and fair play to him, but he wasn't comparing like with like.

That is effectively right is might argument. Popularity of religion or ethos doesn't mean it is true just popular. Using the same logic that means the Koran is true. The people spreading this religion also believe with conviction. Many lies have been spread to further a belief and we have a word for it, propaganda. People involved quite often believe what they are saying or choose to spread the lies for what they see as a greater good. The churches have a history of covering up science and I don't know anybody who doesn't believe they have. Are you the first?

Jakkass wrote: »

By definition it was impossible to think that people could communicate with eachother over large distances via a system similar to the telephone, and via the internet. Surely you should have faith that science can eventually do this. There is no disproof of the Resurrection or of Christianity otherwise. If someone can disprove this Resurrection event systematically, that would be the end of my Christianity.

Not by any definition I am aware of and people have been well aware of long distance communication through a physical medium since before Christ.

The big point is you haven't really got any proof for the resurrection and the whole thing deteriorates into the whole spaghetti monster logic which I offer to you to disprove.

Things I find hard to understand about your point of view are
1) People wouldn't lie about events when there is massive amount of events where exactly that has happened
2) People could be tricked about events when again there is plenty of evidence of similar been done
3) The mere fact your personal religion has spread makes it right but don't seem to afford the same belief to other religions that have spread
4) The claim God must exist and don't believe that is faith because I haven't seen you provide proof.

It generally feels like you are ignoring history and human nature but it seems you are doing so out of choice.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Jakkass, what you are essentially saying is this.

[my rant]

You are simply being stubborn.

Jakkass wrote: »

As a mule

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm well aware what you are like, though. So it's no surprise to me.

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, what is the point in descending into character assassinations.

So, one minute you are agreeing with me and now you are indignant?

I'm not resorting to personal attacks. This is not ad hominem. It is directly related to the discussion. You simply won't allow the discussion to go anywhere because you keep shifting the goalposts, changing the subject, stating unreasonable claims, backed by little or no evidence, ignoring points that are crippling to your argument and when people call you on this charade of yours, you throw your hands up and start playing victim.

Pathetic.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree that "they imagined it" is possible. How 11 people plus 500 witnesses could have all imagined Jesus Christ having raised from the dead is beyond me.

Yes but you are perfectly happy to embrace supernatural explanations for these events, so really it shouldn't be "beyond you" considering that wide range of explanations you apparently are open to.

This again gets back to the crux of the matter.

You are perfectly happy to reject explanations that seem implausible yet are perfectly natural and are known to occasionally happen (as I said people, including groups of people, have believed some very strange things and done very strange things based on these beliefs) yet embrace an explanation that requires the suspension of the laws of physics and the introduction of an omnipotent god in order to get it to work.

If you are prepared to consider and accept such an extreme explanation why are other, less supernatural, explanations beyond you?

This is where the issue of standards comes into play.

What standard of plausibility do you rule out as implausible all of them imagining this happened for what ever reason, yet allows for the introduction of a god that raises people from the dead.

To us here such compartmentalisation of standards of plausibility seems ridiculous.

Jakkass wrote: »

How 11 people who had all known Jesus for 3 years could even be remotely mistaken is very unlikely in itself.

Very unlikely compared to what? A resurrection?

If you are prepared to accept as plausible a supernatural explanation that involves a god suspending physical laws and bringing people back to life surely you should be equally open to other natural or supernatural explanations that don't require such an extreme position?

Given that 11 people who all knew Jesus for 3 years being mistaken is still in the realms of known human behaviour and known physical laws to me it would seem much more plausible than an explanation that only works if you introduce an omnipotent god who suspends the laws of nature?

Jakkass wrote: »

You would need to explain it very very well through another means

Why?

It has not been explained very well through the "God did it" explanation, why are you happy to except that explanation with out any ability to test or examine it in any detail?

Yet you expect a detailed, plausible, alternative to convince you otherwise?

Jakkass wrote: »

The disciples didn't commit suicide. Infact many of them saw death as being a detriment to the Gospel they were to minister for.

That wasn't my point. My point was that we know humans, including groups of humans, can believe very strange things and act on these beliefs.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I think it is reasonable that if God exists, that through the Holy Spirit Christ was raised from the dead. If God did not exist, then it would be impossible that Christ was raised from the dead. I'm quite capable of discerning that much. That's basically what it comes down to Wicknight.

But if you are happy to accept such an extreme explanation, introducing a god that suspends and alters natural law, as being plausible then on what grounds are you ruling out other explanations as being implausible? What standard are you using?

It seems to me that it is a case of you being prepared to accept one and only one supernatural explanation, the one that fits your religion, and all other explanations you fall back to a high level of scepticism. This seems rather illogical.

If we open the flood gates to supernatural explanations then how do we disregard some and not others, let alone rationalise only considering one specific one.

Can you honestly say you cannot think of a supernatural explanation to explain how these people would think they saw Jesus that doesn't involve a resurrection. There may be some trouble with the plausibility of natural explanations, but once you are prepared to accept supernatural explanations the world is your oyster. I can think of a dozen supernatural explanations of the top of my head.

So what is the rational for picking one supernatural explanation over any other one? How are we supposed to determine the likelihood of one over the other. How do we determine that God resurrected him is more or less plausible than time travelling aliens, or the Viking trickster god Loki having a laugh?

Again it is ridiculous to say on one hand that explanation X is implausible because of these natural rules (people tend not to die for a lie, groups of people tend not to see similar illusions etc) and then on the other hand throw natural law out the window and embrace a supernatural explanation.

If standards of adhering to nature don't apply for one explanation why are they expected to apply for others?

Jakkass wrote: »

Surely you should have faith that science can eventually do this.

It is not a question of technology, it is a question of testability.

How can you test something that doesn't adhere to any common rules or natural law? How do you determine anything about that thing if it is under no requirement to act or behave in any standard way?

God is a perfect example. Given that by definition there is no requirement for God to adhere to anything we can measure how does one test whether or not God has or has not done something?

Given that God can make him doing something look exactly like he didn't do something, and that we cannot determine God did something over any other supposed supernatural being, it becomes utterly impossible to test this.

Take the resurrection. How does one determine that it was actually God (the Abrahamic god) who resurrected Jesus. This seems to be just taken as a given by Christians (the justification seems to be simply that no one else was claiming otherwise, as if that some how means something), but it is impossible to determine this is actually the case if you are happy to accept the concept of super powerful beings might exist. There is no test, none what so ever, that can be applied to even begin to assess one scenario from the other.

An example I like to use is the Viking god Loki just having a laugh. There is absolutely no way to determine whether it was the Abrahamic god or Loki resurrecting Jesus if you are prepared to entertain the idea of a resurrection.

Religious people tend to be prepared to entertain only the explanation put forward by their religion (like I said Christians seem to accept God resurrecting Jesus simply because that was the only claim put forward), and are perfectly happy to disregard other possible supernatural explanations as being irrelevant, but I can see no justification for this at all beyond blind faith.

So how do you rule out the supernatural?

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no disproof of the Resurrection or of Christianity otherwise. If someone can disprove this Resurrection event systematically, that would be the end of my Christianity.

Given that you know perfectly well that that is impossible to demonstrate I don't think you are sweating much.

A good example of this type of challenge and the toothlessness of it is the way "God did it" is simply moved every time science comes up with a natural explanation for something (life, the earth, the sun).

Religious people are happy to do this because no one can ever demonstrate that God wasn't actually the ultimately the force behind something, even if that thing looks totally natural. "God did it" is currently resting just before the Big Bang. If scientists discover a natural explanation for the Big Bang (M-Theory say) "God did it" will simply shift to be the cause of that thing. Statements such as "prove God didn't create the Earth" as pointless because even with an overwhelming natural explanation "God did it" just moves some where so that believers can still say God ultimately created the Earth.

So how does one rule out a supernatural cause for something if people are prepared to accept this type of nonsense?

It is impossible given the nature of the supernatural. How would one prove that Jesus wasn't resurrected, even if we had the tools to examine that question (a time machine say).

Video evidence of the body taken down of the cross and thrown into a pile of other bodies where dogs eventually ate the dead body? It is very easy to see how believers would say that that is simply a detail that was wrong and Jesus still was resurrected. Prove he wasn't resurrected after he was eaten!!

Video evidence of a group of people claiming they are currently looking at Jesus, but the video shows they are staring at a blank wall? Prove that Jesus isn't appearing in the mind's eye of the men! Prove that the image of Jesus isn't hidden from the camera! (God doesn't like to be tested after all)

Just look at the Flood. The evidence that none of that happened is overwhelming, yet believers rationalise this in two different ways, believers like Wolfsbane choose to believe all the evidence is wrong, others choose to believe that the story is not literal. How many actually abandon their religion?