Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Kylie]

You seem to misunderstand evidential burdens, because how "extraordinary" a claim is isn't relevant, and setting different evidential burdens for claims you find implausible is nothing but invoking special pleading. It's a common form of fallacious thinking, where the actual meaning of the maxim revolves around evidence it isn't true vs evidence it is true, and for claims like the resurrection or other miracles are bound to get caught up in worldview assumptions.

Why isn't it relevant?

Or are you saying you'd demand the same level of evidence to support the claim that I had a sandwich yesterday as you would to support the claim that I can wish really hard and magically teleport to anywhere in the world that I want?

 

[Fervent]

And yet I've pointed out that there is no practical difference. Both Christianity and Islam have spread due to a combination of people being genuinely convinced and also by threats of violence. You can't claim that Christianity spread only through peace and people genuinely believing and Islam spread only through violence.

You are trying to oversimplify it.

As I've stated several times now, both beliefs spread through both people genuinely believing and through threats of violence.

And do you think that Islam never spread through people genuinely believing it?

Do you think that Christianity never spread through the threat of violence?

Source for this claim please?

Then please show me a source that Christianity was never violent throughout the first millennium, as per your claim. And the same to show that Islam was ALWAYS violent in the same time period.

You pointed out no practical difference, you attacked a strawman. And are continuing to attack a strawman. So are you intentionally attacking a strawman, or do you genuinely not understand what it is I am asking for an explanation of?

 

[Fervent]

Why isn't it relevant?

claims are claims are claims. Personal incredulity is fallacious.

Or are you saying you'd demand the same level of evidence to support the claim that I had a sandwich yesterday as you would to support the claim that I can wish really hard and magically teleport to anywhere in the world that I want?

The level of evidence required would be the same, because a claim is a claim is a claim. Incredulity is not an argument in itself, and requiring extra burdens because you find something implausible is nothing more than blatantly invoking special pleading.

 

[Kylie]

You pointed out no practical difference, you attacked a strawman. And are continuing to attack a strawman. So are you intentionally attacking a strawman, or do you genuinely not understand what it is I am asking for an explanation of?

How can I point out a practical difference when my entire point is that there IS no practical difference?

Both Islam and Christianity have spread, sometimes through the threat of violence, and other times because people genuinely come to believe.

 

[Kylie]

claims are claims are claims. Personal incredulity is fallacious.

The level of evidence required would be the same, because a claim is a claim is a claim. Incredulity is not an argument in itself, and requiring extra burdens because you find something implausible is nothing more than blatantly invoking special pleading.

So, what kind of evidence would it take for you to accept my claim that I can wish really hard and magically teleport to anywhere in the world that I want?

Perhaps you'd ask me to demonstrate it for you?

So, does that mean that if I told you I went to the toilet yesterday, you'd refuse to believe me unless I showed you a photograph of the contents of the toilet bowl before I flushed?

 

[Fervent]

How can I point out a practical difference when my entire point is that there IS no practical difference?

You never engaged with the argument as presented, you shot down a strawman.

Both Islam and Christianity have spread, sometimes through the threat of violence, and other times because people genuinely come to believe.

Which is irrelevant to how they ORIGINATED. Later events aren't relevant. Your response attacks a strawman, and nothing more.

 

[Fervent]

So, what kind of evidence would it take for you to accept my claim that I can wish really hard and magically teleport to anywhere in the world that I want?

Perhaps you'd ask me to demonstrate it for you?

So, does that mean that if I told you I went to the toilet yesterday, you'd refuse to believe me unless I showed you a photograph of the contents of the toilet bowl before I flushed?

I see you're intent to use fallacious reasoning. Since I can no longer assume that you are intellectually honest, this conversation is over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So may I take it that you retract your claim about it being "ridiculous"?

Kylie, which exact part of your argument did I imply was less than cogent? Was it the part about your claim that scholar can't readily affirm that Jesus had followers/disciples?

No, I still that claim isn't correct. But I do very much appreciate you presenting your sources, or at least some of them, to identify from where you've so far in life drawn your conclusions.

Nonetheless, I think my point is still valid. Faith, even the kind you present here, is never invoked when there is actual evidence available.

No. Actually, it's not valid, and when I see atheists push this particular 'replacement' definition, I see their attempt as a form of Bulverism------but I'll allow Spock to explain it to us here below. It's a little more entertaining that way:

Then again, maybe your asserted definition of Christian faith isn't "bulverism," but I think it is, and I think the nature of Christian faith ALWAYS has to have at least some evidence involved, of some form or kind, even if it's of a secondary historical form. Always. There's never the case that a person believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ in complete and utter isolation apart from interpersonal considerations, especially not simply because they just "dreamed it up" as a form of wish fulfillment.

I think the problem here is a different one, conceptually, and it centers on the so-called "sufficiency" of evidence issue rather than on the actual presence of evidence. So, the real problem is one of Criteria and "who" gets to delineate for everyone else what the evaluative criteria should be by which to identify and accept evidence and as to "how" that evidence is then to be evaluated.

A person needing to take a bathroom break is not an extraordinary claim. In fact, it's incredibly mundane. If you really believed what you say here, you'd also have to conclude that you can't be sure that I've ever gone to the bathroom.

Right. But we're not talking about bathroom breaks in relation to the Resurrection. No, we're only talking about whether there is historical evidence for Jesus having had disciples of any kind, right?

But the claim that Jesus had followers who had seen him perform many miracles is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires much more extraordinary evidence.

Oh. I see what you're really wanting to drive at. Ok.

So, we're not merely wondering if, historically, Jesus had disciples.

But here's the thing: how do you know Jesus had disciples like Peter or Judas? Can you answer this question for me before we get to the point about then asking if Jesus had disciples, like Peter and Thomas and Mary (and Paul), who [as is claimed] saw Him risen from the dead?

How do we even "KNOW" that Jesus had disciples as described in the Bible? Why would we even think that? Based on what kind of evidence that you, yourself, accept do you think biblically identified disciples of Jesus existed?

 

[BCP1928]

Kylie, which exact part of your argument did I imply was less than cogent? Was it the part about your claim that scholar can't readily affirm that Jesus had followers/disciples?

No, I still that claim isn't correct. But I do very much appreciate you presenting your sources, or at least some of them, to identify from where you've so far in life drawn your conclusions.

No. Actually, it's not valid, and when I see atheists push this particular 'replacement' definition, I see their attempt as a form of Bulverism------but I'll allow Spock to explain it to us here below. It's a little more entertaining that way:

Then again, maybe your asserted definition of Christian faith isn't "bulverism," but I think it is, and I think the nature of Christian faith ALWAYS has to have at least some evidence involved, of some form or kind, even if it's of a secondary historical form. Always. There's never the case that a person believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ in complete and utter isolation apart from interpersonal considerations, especially not simply because they just "dreamed it up" as a form of wish fulfillment.

I think the problem here is a different one, conceptually, and it centers on the so-called "sufficiency" of evidence issue rather than on the actual presence of evidence. So, the real problem is one of Criteria and "who" gets to delineate for everyone else what the evaluative criteria should be by which to identify and accept evidence and as to "how" that evidence is then to be evaluated.

Right. But we're not talking about bathroom breaks in relation to the Resurrection. No, we're only talking about whether there is historical evidence for Jesus having had disciples of any kind, right?

Oh. I see what you're really wanting to drive at. Ok.

So, we're not merely wondering if, historically, Jesus had disciples.

But here's the thing: how do you know Jesus had disciples like Peter or Judas? Can you answer this question for me before we get to the point about then asking if Jesus had disciples, like Peter and Thomas and Mary (and Paul), who [as is claimed] saw Him risen from the dead?

How do we even "KNOW" that Jesus had disciples as described in the Bible? Why would we even think that? Based on what kind of evidence that you, yourself, accept do you think biblically identified disciples of Jesus existed?

My attention has wandered from this discussion a bit, but my recollection is that the specific claim being disputed is that there is documentary evidence that the Corinthian Creed was formulated in the 30s. An appeal to 'secondary historicity' is not an effective substitute for it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My attention has wandered from this discussion a bit, but my recollection is that the specific claim being disputed is that there is documentary evidence that the Corinthian Creed was formulated in the 30s. An appeal to 'secondary historicity' is not an effective substitute for it.

It's difficult to nail a spore ......................................... I can't tell which way it's going because everyone keeps gerrymandering and jigging the questions and claims.

What's more, no one as yet has asserted any methodology of any substance, so I'm just kind of doing a skeet shoot as things pop up........

 

[BCP1928]

It's difficult to nail a spore ......................................... I can't tell which way it's going because everyone keeps gerrymandering and jigging the questions and claims.

What's more, no one as yet has asserted any methodology of any substance, so I'm just kind of doing a skeet shoot as things pop up........

It's a difficult claim to prove. Even unassailable evidence for the Resurrection itself would not substantiate it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a difficult claim to prove. Even unassailable evidence for the Resurrection itself would not substantiate it.

Fortunately, the substance of the historical presence of the Christian faith doesn't stand or fall on the alleged "Corinthian Creed."

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a difficult claim to prove. Even unassailable evidence for the Resurrection itself would not substantiate it.

Good.

Let's get back to embedded age, shall we?

 

[BCP1928]

Good.

Let's get back to embedded age, shall we?

OK. My question is, why should we concern ourselves with it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good.

Let's get back to embedded age, shall we?

You see, AV. I have a much more linear explanation than that for it all, but as fate has it, I'm an 11/11 Christian and I'm not too concerned about whether or not you and I disagree on the ontological niceties.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK. My question is, why should we concern ourselves with it?

So you won't waste your time thinking deep time is a viable part of our cosmology.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see, AV. I have a much more linear explanation than that for it all, but as fate has it, I'm an 11/11 Christian and I'm not too concerned about whether or not you and I disagree on the ontological niceties.

So you think discussing some Corinthian creed (whatever that is) is a viable alternative to your lack of concern?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you think discussing some Corinthian creed (whatever that is) is a viable alternative to your lack of concern?

No. If you noticed from the thread chain, I haven't been focused upon the Corinthian Creed specifically. Others apparently have been though.

In fact, it's hard to tell since folks seem to randomly pick at whichever part of the quilt catches their attention most .............................

 

[Fervent]

Good.

Let's get back to embedded age, shall we?

So by your words, logic can take a hike...so we can't argue for embedded age using logic. Science can take a hike, so we can't look for scientific evidence. It's not explicitly stated in the Bible, so we can't look to the Bible to inform us of what embedded age means or is....so how do we come to believe it?

 

[BCP1928]

So you won't waste your time thinking deep time is a viable part of our cosmology.

I don't waste any time at all doing that now. I am reminded of William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor in the Scopes Trial, who testified under oath, "I don't know how old the universe is and I don't really care."