Aaron:

You haven't shown I am using inconsistent standards. Indeed, you haven't even addressed my argument.

So instead of your usual irrelevant babble you might take a stab at either (1) the premise-- that we have more reliable means of documentation now than we did in the past, or (2) the conclusion, that the fact that religious claims all involve things that happened before we had that technology and only had less reliable means of documentation renders such claims more suspect.

Again, Concerto, many other people in this thread understand my argument. So if you don't, I'm sorry, I guess you just don't get it.

No one understands your argument because you don't have one.

I now have to retract my previous statements... he is correct in that it may be evidence against.... but not proof that God doesn't exist.

It's not strong evidence however...

Lack of evidence isn't necessarily strong evidence for a case.

You think the people that will answer this question thinks the op is "dumb".

Do you acknowledge humans have a sinful nature? By grace, humans are given a chance to be redeemed. Original sin is against God's will. And thereafter, human nature is to go against God's will. God is not bound by time, so what seems like favorites is God doing what needs to be done to salvage humanity. Those that have never heard of Jesus are simply not judged based on that, but will still be judged for their sins, just like every Christian will be.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

- Carl Sagan

That's because you haven't actually made an argument yet.

I do not reject this premise. But this was never the premise that I challenged.

You've used this concept of "proper documentation" but it remains poorly defined in the context of that which you want to prove. I then proceeded to challenge an assertion of yours:

This has everything to do with your understanding of how we know anything in history (pre-printing press in your terminology, but based on what you said it's really pre-movable-type). But you clearly did not understand this, as evidenced by your next response:

Clearly, my position has nothing to do with arguing against the advancement of technology. But rather, how you interpret the information from the past in light of that advancement.

Given that you have failed to establish your conclusion from the premises, I think we can just leave this to the side.

Maybe instead of arguing the strength we can talk about the TYPE of evidence. Because I actually agree with the Sagan quote (which was, unfortunately, butchered by Don Rumsfeld during the Iraq War) that Concerto cited.

But I don't think this is just "absence of evidence". Rather, there's more to it than that:

Specifically, suppose your kid told you that he saw ghosts in the house every time you left and talked to them. In response, you go down to see the ghosts with the kid, but they never appear. You set up video recording and audio recording equipment, but they do not detect them. You even pretend to leave the kid alone and stay in the house, hiding somewhere, trying to see the ghosts. They never come.

But the kid is sure he saw them. And the kid then tells you that the ghosts told him that they are invisible to adults and never come when there is an adult or any sort of recording equipment present.

Now, if I were advancing the claim that the ghosts did not exist, would that simply be a matter of the "absence" of evidence? Or would the claim that the ghosts will never appear in situations where their existence could be verified make the claim more suspect?

Another, more religious example. Joseph Smith's lost 116 pages. He "translated" them from the plates given to him by the angel Moroni, and then the pages were shown to several visitors to the home of his secretary and eventually lost. He then announced that the Angel refused to allow him to "translate" these plates again, but instead would allow him to translate the same information "in an abridged form" from other plates.

Now, is the claim against the lost 116 pages story merely one of "absence of evidence"? Or does the circumstances of God supposedly wanting to transmit information only by means that are less verifiable make the claim more suspicious?

Aaron:

You are seizing on a few words that had little to do with my thesis (you are wrong in the point you are making, but it is off topic), and ignoring my actual point. If you don't think (2) flows from (1) (which you now concede), tell us why. Otherwise, stop trying to change the subject.

That would be evidence of absence, though this experiment has no applicability to miracles that occurred in antiquity.

Of course it does. That's the whole point of the argument. The claim that miracles only occurred before we developed more reliable means of documentation is evidence that the miracles didn't happen in the same way that the claim that the ghosts don't show up when there are adults or recording devices around is evidence that the ghosts don't exist.

I have to disagree here, while this certainly can be true, I can think of quite a few instances where it could be established that something supernatural was going on.

Someone consistently able to predict the future, in non trivial way that they cannot themselves influence.

Pyramid healing could heal every single patient that used it.

Feng Shui clients could be dramatically more successful than those who do without it.

Dousers could have an ability to find water above what would statistically be expected.

God could tell everyone on earth simultaneously, that in 10 seconds he would split the earth in two, and then put it back together with no damage done and make good on the promise.

Here's the part that makes sense: we have more reliable means of documentation now than we did in the past, so the fact that religious claims all involve things that happened before we had that technology renders such claims more suspect.

Here's the part that doesn't make sense: fact that Jesus has not appeared after technology advanced is evidence against Xtianit

As an historical aside...

Newspapers predate the printing press and movable type. Ancient China had newspapers (200 BC) and ancient Rome had newspapers (+- 50 BC/AD). Professor Mitchell Stephens from NYU has a fairly long article about the history of newspapers if you wish to read more.

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/...27s%20page.htm

It's worth keeping in mind as you read that newspapers are socially influenced records, and not always dispassionate reports of facts.

It is also way easier to bull**** miracles. Chris Angel has done all sorts of things that would be miracles if they were real, walked on water, water into wine, etc. All caught on tape. do you worship Chris Angel?

Premise: We have more reliable means of documentation now than we did in the past.

"Argument": Jesus has not appeared after technology advanced.

Conclusion: Christianity is more likely to be false.

------

Let's do some replacements.

Premise: We have more reliable means of documentation now than we did in the past.

"Argument": Ancient Rome has not appeared after technology advanced.

Conclusion: ???

Again, why? Simply asserting the equivalence does not make it so.

To assume the boy's account of the ghost is correct despite the result of an experiment involving a sufficient number of observations could suggest this ghost is purposely eluding detection.

This does not apply to public miracles which we have no reason to expect to be ongoing.

Please describe what a specific scientific finding of "supernatural" could look like.

what do you suppose the inhabitants of first century palestine would think of chris angel if he were somehow teleported to that time and he performed his illusions? (please answer honestly)

follow up question. what do you suppose the inhabitants of second century palestine would think of chris angel if he were somehow teleported to that time and he claimed to be the second coming of jesus? (please answer jib, you never answer my questions.)

I used a pretty clear example upthread. Parting the Red Sea. If someone went over there and did that, with scientists, monitoring equipment, video cameras, and all the rest present to document it, that would be pretty obvious.

no. lol

1. There were certainly some newspapers that predated the printing press, but the printing press made print journalism, i.e., the contemporaneous recordation of events for reasonably immediate public consumption, possible.

2. Of course newspapers are socially influenced records. But they are still reasonably contemporaneous and widely disseminated, which is a very important advance in terms of reliability. The funny thing is that when it comes to the BS Christian bible sources that you love so much, you don't truck with anyone pointing out anything about social influence or any other possible type of unreliability, but with respect to any other form of technology for recording events, suddenly you're a fricking Luddite.

No need for time travel. There were plenty like him in that society. The way the Bible describes it, such magicians were a dime a dozen.

This actually happened (in the first century), as Jesus predicted.

Matthew 24:3-5 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many."

It could look like any of the examples I gave. The point is that if we observe something that is impossible according to the laws of nature, then the explanation for that phenomenon would have to be supernatural.
The scientific explanation of the phenomena would not be a detailed dissection of the mechanics involved, it would be the admission that it could not have happened naturally.

Jib:

Again, look at the moon landings. Yes, some people think they are fake. But most people accept them.

This is a make-weight argument you are making. Yes, there will always be skeptics. But technology (and mind you, technology is NOT JUST VIDEO-- it's all the things that make it easier to judge reliability of claims now) reduces the extent and degree of skepticism.

Indeed, Uri Gellar bent spoons on recorded video. But technology eventually debunked his claims. Whereas if Jesus bent spoons in the New Testament, the debunking technology hadn't been invented yet.

Um, that you will say anything, no matter how intellectually bankrupt, to defend Christianity?