Major Shift in Christian Apologetics

[POI]

I'm starting to see this more and more.... Some Christians appear to adopt the idea of the 'minimal facts' approach; as quoted here:

"but one should look at the minimal facts argument by Garry Habermas".

Without getting into the weeds here, I'm going to issue a hypothesis.

For Debate:

All that matters is whether or not a resurrection actually happened. The rest is of little concern. This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

Is this a fair hypothesis? I'm open to adjustment.

[POI]

I cannot immediately think of any claims in the Bible which have successfully been falsified. Can you give me an example of one – just one – claim from the Bible that has been absolutely and unequivocally falsified. Give your best shot at a claim that you are completely certain has been falsified.

I'm not going to chase the red herring. Please re-read my topic for debate. I've underlined the parts of importance. Meaning, these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened (i.e.):

This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

Are you one of them, or not? If you are, does this hypothesis stick? If you are not one of them, then I guess, for the 'falsification' process, you can start by instead checking out another thread (viewtopic.php?t=40622).

Further, one can always cry hard solipsism and claim we cannot really "absolutely and unequivocally" know virtually anything. If this is your play, then I guess you have won. We must have some level of faith in almost EVERYTHING

[TRANSPONDER]

I cannot immediately think of any claims in the Bible which have successfully been falsified. Can you give me an example of one – just one – claim from the Bible that has been absolutely and unequivocally falsified. Give your best shot at a claim that you are completely certain has been falsified.

I'm not going to chase the red herring. Please re-read my topic for debate. I've underlined the parts of importance. Meaning, these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened (i.e.):

This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

Are you one of them, or not? If you are, does this hypothesis stick? If you are not one of them, then I guess, for the 'falsification' process, you can start by instead checking out another thread (viewtopic.php?t=40622).

Further, one can always cry hard solipsism and claim we cannot really "absolutely and unequivocally" know virtually anything. If this is your play, then I guess you have won. We must have some level of faith in almost EVERYTHING

Yes. This may look to the Believer like a reasonable point - and it is; nobody can be 100% sure of anything (especially with Brain in a vat and other solipsistic and Woo questions about epistemology) - but it is not a valid apologetic for religious validity, never mind Truth. Occam's razor (always regarded with dislike and suspicion by the Theists) and the simplest explanation that explains all the (available (1) facts is how science, history and detection works: assessment of the evidence and excluding far fetched hypotheses, especially supernatural ones - leaves us with better practical and mundane explanations as the go - to hypothesis, and a far less probable but undisprovable claim is not the better theory. Believers cannot and will not understand this, and if they do, they dismiss logic as human opinion. We know why, because all that matters in religious exegesis is Faith; and evidence, logic and reason is only valid if it supports what is known to be true on Faith. If i doesn't, it is dismissed as invalid human opinions. If this is blatant special pleading and double standards, that doesn't matter a bit because they know they are right on Faith. We must understand that Faith and not evidence, science or logic or history, epistemology or even what the Bible actually says, is the basis of...Faith, and the evidence, reason and epistemology is only useful to support the faith. If it doesn't, in the bin with it.

Once we know how the Theist thinking works, we won't be foxed by it ever again.

(1) which is why the Holmes dictum has only limited application; one has to know all the facts before one can eliminate the impossible.

[bjs1]

I cannot immediately think of any claims in the Bible which have successfully been falsified. Can you give me an example of one – just one – claim from the Bible that has been absolutely and unequivocally falsified. Give your best shot at a claim that you are completely certain has been falsified.

I'm not going to chase the red herring. Please re-read my topic for debate. I've underlined the parts of importance. Meaning, these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened (i.e.):

This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

If the hypothesis is that, “these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened,” then the hypothesis is false. As of yet, there is no evidence for the hypothesis.

The starting point would be provide evidence that “many” such apologists in fact do not believe these events took place.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is what it is, isn't it? I know that sounds otiose but the situation is what it is even if a particular apologetic is unsound. It is what it is, not what a particular person believes or even argues. What it is is sound logically or not.

I'm not quite clear about the minimal fact idea, but the way it is in assessing the Bible, given that many concede that errors have crept in and there may be added stories, errors and falsifications, it is:

(a) broadly correct, given understandable errors, mistakes and alterations or:

(b) there's a lot of stuff in it that is not credible, but the basics, or Basic (Jesus rose from the dead) is the minimum fact one needs to believe, and that is enough for Christian Faith.

I agree. Which is why it is rather nice that :

(c) the resurrection accounts (plus I Corinthians) is so discrepant that it does not count as a credible story and:

(d) even if it could be cobbled or woven together as a single coherent narrative (which is what Christian consistency wall - plasterers do, it is best explained as a ploy or plan to save Jesus from the cross alive, and Matthew had even heard this, rather than Jesus actually recovered from being dead.

Thus it is what it is and what it is, is not worthy of credibility, Belief or Faith.

[POI]

I cannot immediately think of any claims in the Bible which have successfully been falsified. Can you give me an example of one – just one – claim from the Bible that has been absolutely and unequivocally falsified. Give your best shot at a claim that you are completely certain has been falsified.

I'm not going to chase the red herring. Please re-read my topic for debate. I've underlined the parts of importance. Meaning, these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened (i.e.):

This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

If the hypothesis is that, “these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened,” then the hypothesis is false. As of yet, there is no evidence for the hypothesis.

The starting point would be provide evidence that “many” such apologists in fact do not believe these events took place.

The hypothesis remains in place, untouched, until some 'minimal facts' Christians come around to answer. Thus far, none have engaged.

[bjs1]

I cannot immediately think of any claims in the Bible which have successfully been falsified. Can you give me an example of one – just one – claim from the Bible that has been absolutely and unequivocally falsified. Give your best shot at a claim that you are completely certain has been falsified.

I'm not going to chase the red herring. Please re-read my topic for debate. I've underlined the parts of importance. Meaning, these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened (i.e.):

This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

If the hypothesis is that, “these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened,” then the hypothesis is false. As of yet, there is no evidence for the hypothesis.

The starting point would be provide evidence that “many” such apologists in fact do not believe these events took place.

The hypothesis remains in place, untouched, until some 'minimal facts' Christians come around to answer. Thus far, none have engaged.

You may phrase it this way if you wish. I would phrase it as, "The hypothesis remains fanciful, unsupported, until some evidence or reason is brought forward to suggest that there is any truth to it."

[POI]

I cannot immediately think of any claims in the Bible which have successfully been falsified. Can you give me an example of one – just one – claim from the Bible that has been absolutely and unequivocally falsified. Give your best shot at a claim that you are completely certain has been falsified.

I'm not going to chase the red herring. Please re-read my topic for debate. I've underlined the parts of importance. Meaning, these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened (i.e.):

This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

If the hypothesis is that, “these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened,” then the hypothesis is false. As of yet, there is no evidence for the hypothesis.

The starting point would be provide evidence that “many” such apologists in fact do not believe these events took place.

The hypothesis remains in place, untouched, until some 'minimal facts' Christians come around to answer. Thus far, none have engaged.

You may phrase it this way if you wish. I would phrase it as, "The hypothesis remains fanciful, unsupported, until some evidence or reason is brought forward to suggest that there is any truth to it."

Thank you for telling me how you would wish to phrase it. What I wish, is that some 'minimal facts Christians' would actually weigh in here. Seem you are not one of them, so I'm not quite sure what you are still doing here in this thread?

[TRANSPONDER]

I cannot immediately think of any claims in the Bible which have successfully been falsified. Can you give me an example of one – just one – claim from the Bible that has been absolutely and unequivocally falsified. Give your best shot at a claim that you are completely certain has been falsified.

I'm not going to chase the red herring. Please re-read my topic for debate. I've underlined the parts of importance. Meaning, these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened (i.e.):

This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

If the hypothesis is that, “these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened,” then the hypothesis is false. As of yet, there is no evidence for the hypothesis.

The starting point would be provide evidence that “many” such apologists in fact do not believe these events took place.

The hypothesis remains in place, untouched, until some 'minimal facts' Christians come around to answer. Thus far, none have engaged.

You may phrase it this way if you wish. I would phrase it as, "The hypothesis remains fanciful, unsupported, until some evidence or reason is brought forward to suggest that there is any truth to it."

This is quite clear - it is the basis of Christian argument - the Bible and its' claims are true until disproved. This is wonderful for the believers as it gives them what the god - claim does not: the burden of proof is on the atheist.

The Bible is to be believed as much as any other book and that means (they think) that they only have to wave away any and all arguments, evidence and logic and they win by default. Isn't that the way it works? ; Yes, that is the way it is supposed to work. But it doesn't work that way with other books; they are assessed for reliability and trustworthiness. It isn't always easy, but the answer is not to dismiss all discussion and question and take every book on Faith, and the Believer knows this and should know that applies to the Bible, too.

So the burden falls on the critic to give reasons why the Bible is open to question. Forget the OT, Genesis literalism and YE Creationism, which is a separate cult more to do with denial of election results than with religion and nothing to do with Christianity. It is gospel credibility that comes under question, and even though the Believer tries to make it depend on them dismissing all the evidence and arguments and maintaining Faith that it is true, no matter how it looks, it is not all about them and their Faith but about how the public will think (assuming they aren't already faith - fixated) if and when the points are put to them.

Will they buy the 2nd census. the rope broke, there were two temple cleansings, they didn't notice the saving of the penitent thief, nor the spear thrust it seems? Mary did not go into the tomb, nor hear what the angel outside told her, even if she didn't hear the angel inside repeat that, let alone running into Jesus who says the same thing the third time. Mary didn't hear or see anything which is why she hasn't a clue when she reports to the disciples. If it even looks like it'll save the story, no matter how far fetched, it'll be enough for the Believer.

But is it enough for those who are open to doubt? Yes, if only the evangelist gets to mr J Public first. You just have to make sure they never get to hear the Bible critics, because we can make Bible apologetics look like a dogs' dinner, and the far - fetched excuses the Bible apologists use like the cats' left - overs.

One such being your ploy above - to pin the true or false on one point (the One shot win) whether not it is misrepresented or the proponent went too far.

Suppose person a says that 'most Christians do not believe everything in the bible. You call for validation. I don't know whether a poll has ever been taken, but the Bible apologist can easily dismiss polls on one pretext or another if it doesn't give the result they want. But let's be honest if we can: we know thar some reject hellfire. JW's don't believe the promise of heaven. Some Christians accept evolution. Others may accept that the nativity, Matthew's descending angels and perambulating zombies are not true, and a lot might reject the shekel eating fish. Should the question not equally apply to you that Christians do accept everything in the Bible? You have no business putting your claim as the default theory while POI had to prove a reasonable assumption, while you don't have to prove a thing.

But even if POI has to backtrack and say that point can't be proven with a national survey, that doesn't validate Christianity or Bible as a default, just a reset of the claim.

[bjs1]

This is quite clear - it is the basis of Christian argument - the Bible and its' claims are true until disproved. This is wonderful for the believers as it gives them what the god - claim does not: the burden of proof is on the atheist.

You misunderstand. In this thread the stated premises is, “these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened.” This does not address the truth of the scriptures themselves. It is a (unsupported) claim about what these Christians believe.

If their beliefs are accurate or not is a separate discussion. This thread has, somewhat uncharitably, suggested that “minimal facts Christians” think that many of the beliefs they claim to hold have been proven false.

[Purple Knight]

The salient point seems to me to be the claim and the validity of the claim. I have said and stand by it that 'metaphorically true' means 'Not true at all'. If Genesis never happened and is just admonitions about lifestyle or morals, it is worth no more than Peanuts, or LoR. At best, it is philosophy or social political opinions.

No more and no less, too.

And if Charlie Brown, or Aslan, or Frodo, or Jesus, or something any one of these said or did, ends up teaching a good lesson, at the end of the day it's still a good lesson.

And if it's a bad lesson, at the end of the say it's still a bad lesson.

If Jesus rose, they can justify all of it.

My argument is that they can't. Let's say God is real. Does magic. Does miracles. Sends people to Hell if he likes, and Heaven if he likes.

Okay, now say I can do all this. I'm a very powerful supervillain, not a god. And I can't create right and wrong; I still must follow them. If I use my power to abuse people and mistreat them, then I'm a tyrant.

So goes it for the one naming himself God in the first place.

Right and wrong is not dependent on how powerful a person is or what their name is.

If right and wrong do not transcend power or godhood, then at the end of the day it's just might-makes-right and there is no right or wrong. QED.

Look at the pictures JW posts. These are childhood-like fantasies of Never Land. If Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, then they are infantile attempts at conning people in the worst way. They are saccharinely grotesque frauds - trying to give hope to desperate people for nothing but their money.

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, the last 2000 years has been a lie. The Crusades a murderous rampage; the Inquisition an ISIS-like horror show; the cathedrals, prayers, selling of indulgences, the sexual abuse, the wasted Sundays, the guilt, the murder of gay people, the killing of "witches", etc...

This is a very serious question: What if people are being scammed into being good, rather than out of their money, and people do those horrid things like kill off opposing groups even if they don't do it for religious reasons?