This is round 2 in the debate between Lenardos and Jacobsen on the topic, "Do Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence?"

Lenardos - Round 2

Brady wrote:

"1) We both agree that the atheist must avoid at all cost the use of historical method.”

Paul responded:

“You say ‘avoid at all cost’ as if we are running away from it. What I said was, that to my understanding, the "historical method" summarily dismisses supernatural events, primarily because they are not verifiable. Therefore, I argue that by your own insistence on using the "historical method", you instantly loose. But, if you insist on trying to use naturalistic methods to analyze the supernatural, it is like trying to use a voltmeter to measure the age of the universe. I'm not "avoiding" historical methods, I'm simply recognizing that naturalistic methodologies aren't applicable. (I'll return to the issue of measuring supernatural forces in a moment, when you address this issue.)"

First, there is nothing inherent in historical investigation or the methods and criterion used in this investigation that summarily dismisses supernatural events. This is a false assumption on your part. However, there may be historians that do summarily dismiss supernatural events, but all they are doing is imposing their presuppositions to come to the conclusion they already have predetermined. It is a form of the vicious circle, in other words fallacious. If you could show otherwise, I would be happy to listen.

Second, regarding the observation of supernatural events by those who have only natural abilities, you continue to write:

"I suspect that Lenardos would object to my assertion that supernatural events are beyond our senses. Supernatural events, at least those that would concern us, are presumably those that somehow interact with our natural universe. For example, if Jesus was raised from the dead, he then interacted with people after his death. But that is not what I mean. I mean the force that brought Jesus back to life is immeasurable. Naturalistic forces, such as gravity, are detectable and measurable with naturalist devices. Supernatural forces are not detectable or measurable. Which means all evidence in favor of a supernatural event is always circumstantial. "

You continue:

“Since you didn't understand the previous paragraph the first time, I'll try a different wording. Yes, if supernatural events happen, then the results of that event would be detectable. But, the supernatural cause (or force) that produced the results are not. Nobody was inside the tomb. But say somebody was. And say this witness even had modern test equipment with him or her. If Jesus really was brought back to life in front of the witness, the force that brought him back to life would be still be undetectable. And therefore, such a witness would only be able to say, "I cannot explain this event." He or she wouldn't be able to know for certain that something naturalistic happened, but simply didn't have the right test equipment with to discover it.

“Admittedly, when Jesus got up, the witness present would probably consider the circumstantial evidence, the awaking of a man that seemed to be dead, to probably be sufficient circumstantial evidence of a supernatural event. But, it would still be circumstantial! There would still be no direct evidence of the supernatural force. Supernatural and natural forces simply are not comparable. Supernatural forces are not detectable. If they are, then they aren't supernatural, they are natural."

There are a lot of assumptions in your response here is one that I will address:

First, that supernatural causes are not detectible by natural means. You want to suggest it is tautological, but I see no inherent reason this is so. In fact, if your above assumption were true, it inherently prevents you from KNOWING it is true. Why do I say this? Because if your assumption is true, how could you possibly test it to determine it is true? There is no way to test it. But if you can't test it how do you know it is true? You don't. It is not true by definition, nor can you gather evidence for or against it (if it is true). This is what is called in philosophy a "meaningless statement."

If you still think it is your assumption is inherent in the terms, then it should be an easy syllogism. Let's see it. But I think you will find that all you can do is build on mere assumptions.

Second, you seem to think that circumstantial is something bad. Most of history comes to us based on circumstantial evidence. If we reject every bit of history that is determined circumstantially, we would have to reject virtually all of history. The question is not whether the evidence is circumstantial, but is the evidence sufficient.

And yes, I still hold that atheists have to run from historical methodology, and in the end they must run from history altogether, as you have done in your response. You have given no criterion or baseline from which we may judge. And you wind up questioning history altogether.

Even the person you quote at length, after he says, "In addition, there are good reasons to conclude that the gospels are not accurate histories written by eyewitnesses in the first place, " he does not use any accepted historical methodology to back his claims, he merely uses some nonsense he made up, which if evenly applied to ancient history would prove that 99/100ths of what is in our history books never occurred.

Until next time.

Regards,

Brady

Jacobsen - Round 2

Well, in my opinion, Mr. Lenardos' second response was better than his first response. Some of his points I concede were valid. Even so, I still have much to disagree with:

Disclaimer: Okay, I make some claims in this part that I'm not qualified to make. I'm not an expert on history, so I really have no business making historical claims. And, my main point is, and remains, history cannot validate supernatural events, making the historical claims moot. But, Mr. Lenardos insists on going down that road, and at least from what I've read, his historical arguments are in error. I can produce sources for the claims here, but no doubt they'd be criticized as biased. But of course, so would Lenardos' sources. After all, isn't everybody on this issue biased to some degree? So, getting honestly unbiased data is essentially impossible. The best we can do is present the arguments from his biased sources and my biased sources, and see which arguments seem the strongest, keeping in mind the possible bias of the source. So, on with my response:

Lenardos writes:

First, there is nothing inherent in historical investigation or the methods and criterion used in this investigation that summarily dismisses supernatural events.

Admittedly, my source of the claim that supernatural events are normally automatically dismissed was a biased source, and I'm certainly no expert, so, I defer to you on this and accept that you are correct.

Lenardos talks a lot about "methods and criterion", well, I confess ignorance on "methods and criterion" of historical research. I'd be interested if he could give me a reasonably brief rundown, or point me to a good reference.

First, that supernatural causes are not detectible by natural means. You want to suggest it is tautological, but I see no inherent reason this is so.

Well, it does indeed seem tautological. If something is measurable and detectable by natural means, then it ain't supernatural now is it? At least it seems that way to me. But, if I'm wrong, isn't it up to you to show me that I'm wrong? Isn't it up to you to show me how to detect supernatural events with naturalistic devices? For instance, if there had been a witness in the tomb of Jesus, and this witness had modern test equipment, what would they have looked for? And, would it be repeatable?

Let's pretend this imaginary witness noticed an unusual level of gamma radiation shortly before Jesus awoke. If this were the case, could it be reproduced? Could other people be brought to life by gamma radiation? If the answer is no, then it wasn't really the gamma radiation per se that brought Jesus back to life. God might have somehow employed the gamma radiation in His process of bringing Jesus back, but the gamma radiation itself wouldn't be the root cause. Now of course I was only using gamma radiation as an example, but you could use anything else naturalistic as well. Whether there was gamma radiation, x-rays, blue light, whatever, present while Jesus arose from the dead, if those things don't bring people back to life normally, then they aren't the real cause of what brought him back to life. Therefore, if the anything measurable at the time of an alleged supernatural event doesn't repeatedly produce the same results, then they aren't the actual cause of the event. Now, if they do repeatedly cause the same results, then we have stopped talking about a supernatural event, we're talking about a natural event. And therefore, it seems quite correct, it is a tautology that supernatural events are not verifiable naturalistically. But, if I'm wrong, its up to you to show me I'm wrong. You tell me, what tests equipment and procedures someone should use to validate supernatural events. Until you do, I'll conclude that I am correct, it cannot be done.

In fact, if your above assumption were true, it inherently prevents you from KNOWING it is true. Why do I say this? Because if your assumption is true, how could you possibly test it to determine it is true? There is no way to test it. But if you can't test it how do you know it is true? You don't. It is not true by definition, nor can you gather evidence for or against it (if it is true). This is what is called in philosophy a "meaningless statement."

Oh, barfaroosky. Let's say I were to claim that God is the invisible mouse in my pocket. Can you gather evidence that God is not the invisible mouse in my pocket? No? Well, by your argument, if you were to say that God isn't the invisible mouse in my pocket would be a "meaningless statement". No, until you can give me a way to test for supernatural events with naturalistic devices, then I believe I am being quite rational to assume it cannot be done.

Second, you seem to think that circumstantial is something bad. Most of history comes to us based on circumstantial evidence.

You indeed have a fair point here. But, it is important to again note that simply means that our ability to ascertain historical certainty is thereby limited.

If we reject every bit of history that is determined circumstantially, we would have to reject virtually all of history. The question is not whether the evidence > is circumstantial, but is the evidence sufficient.

What you are really saying here is, everything in history, particularly ancient history, is somewhat suspect. We make our best guess what happened by the weight of the evidence, but because there is often not that much, our best guess may in fact be wrong.

Even the person you quote at length, after he says, "In addition, there are good reasons to conclude that the gospels are not accurate histories written by eyewitnesses in the first place," he does not use any accepted historical methodology to back his claims, he merely uses some nonsense he made up.

Oh, double barfaroosky. Tell me, what exactly could he have produced that you would accept as meeting "accepted historical methodology"? What would you have accepted? What meets this definition? You dismiss everything Hobbs says very conveniently, as being "nonsense he made up" when it seems quite clearly 100% correct. He said we don't have any writings by Jesus. Do we? He said we don't have any writings by any of his enemies. Do we? Jesus supposedly had tons of enemies, and yet we have no writings from any of them. He said we in fact have exactly zero references to Jesus in any writings contemporary to Jesus. Do we? So, you're easy dismissal of Hobbs seems clearly to be a case of denial on your part.

He does not use any accepted historical methodology to back his claims, he merely uses some nonsense he made up, which if evenly applied to ancient history would prove that 99/100ths of what is in our history books never occurred.

No, at most it would prove that 99% of what is in history books is "best guesses" that may or may not be right. You act like "accepted historical standards" produce guaranteed results. Well, they don't. They simply produce best guesses. In the case of Jesus, there simply isn't any contemporary references to him, so there isn't hardly nothing to even make a "best guess" with.

Also, I noticed that you conveniently ignored some of my questions. Such as, you never answered if you would want more evidence if I said I flapped my arms and flew to the store then you would if I said I walked to the store. You never answered if, since we both agree that there is good evidence Constantine was emperor of Rome, would you bet your eternal soul on it?

Follow the "Next" link to the next round.