tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post1504094393475822275..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: Evidence, Theism, DebatesDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-10625248861632251932009-02-10T11:25:00.000-05:002009-02-10T11:25:00.000-05:00I don’t particularly care for the phrase, “Extraor...<I>I don’t particularly care for the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as the term “extraordinary” is too difficult to define.</I><BR/><BR/>And yet your whole post does just that: defines extraordinary with respect to both claims and evidence. <wink><BR/><BR/>We can see how evidentiary apologists — professional academics — egregiously contradict fundamental evidentiary methodology.<BR/><BR/>First, the resurrection is presented as <I>not extraordinary</I>, i.e. not improbable on our background information. <A HREF="http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf" REL="nofollow">William Lane Craig asserts</A>, "That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead."<BR/><BR/>Second, as you note, the actual <I>evidence</I> is what we have in our hands, the testimony, and <I>not</I> the facts asserted in the testimony. This is a really terrific point and a point even many lawyers miss (I suspect because the rules of evidence (supposedly) try to improve the <I>veracity</I> of testimony).<BR/><BR/>Third, theism is <I>unfalsifiable</I>. Evidentiary arguments are <I>completely irrelevant</I> to unfalsifiable assertions. Making an evidentiary argument for an unfalsifiable proposition is not just incompetence, it's actually <I>lying</I>.<BR/><BR/>Again, we can look to Craig: "In order to show that that hypothesis is improbable, you’d have to show that God’s existence is improbable. But Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything about God. Therefore, he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable. But if he can’t say that, neither can he say that the resurrection of Jesus is improbable."<BR/><BR/>We cannot speak meaningfully about the probability or improbability of Jesus' resurrection. Evidence, therefore, cannot affect the probability of an assertion to which probability is <I>explicitly disclaimed</I>.<BR/><BR/>Thus my conclusion: <I>all</I> evidentiary apologists, professional or amateur, are liars or those directly or indirectly duped by liars, and thus lack the competence and/or good will necessary to conduct a rational discussion.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com