"Eric Miller" wrote in message . net...
This is simply the definition of induction.
Abduction = "the simple process of elimination", this is just another
definition.

Sounds like we're in vigorous agreement, then.

Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard
evidence is necessary for confirmation.


That's the nugget, then. What hard evidence would convince you?



Maybe this is a stretch, but think about Schroedinger's cat.

Like I said, it was a stretch. It's HARD to come up with good
analogies on the fly at two in the morning!

I don't claim to be a phizzykist, just a fairly-well-read layman with
a few years of engineerin' skoolin. You're quite right about
misinformed believers half-quoting science. Bothers me a great deal.
Verges on "false witness" IMO. It's nearly as irritating as
non-believers misquoting and misrepresenting religious beliefs.

To pull the other thread in he Regarding Elvis sightings, I've got

You're misstating me again.
I never said people would willingly die for what they knew to be a lie.
But a willingness to be tortured and killed for what you belief doesn't
prove that what you believe is true.

Agreed. The point is that the ringleaders of any hypothetical
conspiracy to fake a resurrection and mass sightings would have been
among those whom the authorities tried to threaten into silence. But
they weren't silenced.


Ah, but Mark was based on earlier sources, remember? Paul wrote in
the mid-50's - *today* in "Elvis years." Acts was written in the late
50's or early 60's, and Luke not ony traveled with Paul but
interviewed everyone he could get his hands on. The point is, the
*earliest* accounts of Jesus include the conviction - not the faint
hope, but the core conviction - that Jesus had risen from the dead.

See above. Conviction isn't truth and isn't proof.

True, but the point is merely that the "borrowed from Mithraism"
hypothesis doesn't fly - it's documentabe that the belief dates to the
earliest days of the Jerusalem church.


The authorities at the time had EVERY incentive to prove that claim
false. That claim was the basis for their persecution of the apostles
from Day One. It was a major embarassment. If anyone had means and
motive to uncover a conspiracy to fake Jesus' resurrection, it was the
political and religious leaders in Jerusalem in the weeks immediately
following Easter!

You can't use a lack of disproof as proof..

Agreed, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - it cuts
both ways, though. The point here is that the folks with means to
pull off a PR con-job lacked motive - unless that motive was to
discredit the movement. The folks with alleged motive to fake a
resurrection (and that motive is HIGHLY debatable) lacked the means.

It could be a fabrication they failed to disprove and still be false.

Sure, but you still have to have a plausible fabrication. I'm still
waiting for a scenario that fits the facts.

The explanation could've been lost (or suppressed, remember, history is
liberally written and re-written by the victors) over time.

Nuh-uhn, that dog won't hunt. The argument might have been valid a
century or two ago, but we've since discovered NT documents that
predate Constantine. The contents of the Gospels were not altered
when Christianity became legal.

For that matter, it could've been beneath notice and no attempt to disprove
was made.

Wrong again, my friend. Have a look at Acts - Within weeks after the
resurrection, Peter was hauled up in court and ordered to stop
preaching. He refused.


you do the best you can and hope it's good enough.

So on the question of the resurrection you demand incontrovertible
ironclad proof, but on the question of your *own* eternal fate you're
perfectly satisfied with a fuzzy-wuzzy I'm-ok-you're-ok warm happy
feel-good explanation? Error, Will Robinson! That does not compute!
War-ning! War-ning! *waves vacuum-hose arms* :-D


BTW, that is *precisely* what kept Martin Luther up nights. He
couldn't be sure. He had a worldview that laid out a clear roadmap to
salvation - do these do's, don't those don'ts, and it'll all work out.
Problem was, he couldn't figure his grade. Never mind the fine line
between C and D. He couldn't tell if he was running a B+ or a D-.
That's when he figured out that salvation HAS to be by faith alone,
apart from works. "Do the best you can" doesn't count, because no
human best can come anywhere CLOSE to perfect - and perfect is all
that gets across the gate.

Oh BTW, you dodged the question. You place yourself in the group with
Ma T, but you don't say where the line gets drawn. Somewhere between
you and pillagers and looters, though, right? Them folks are SOL,
right?

But pillaging and looting is really just theft, writ large. So is ANY
theft automatically disqualifying? Think about that carefully - ever
get back too much change and not notice till later? If you keep the
money, that's technically theft. It'd be a real bummer to go to Hell
over a couple of lousy bucks. So maybe SOME level of theft is
acceptable? How much? How do you determine it? Is it a
percentage-transaction basis, an incident count (three strikes and
you're out), or is there a lifetime dollar limit? What if you steal
from the rich and give to the poor? Is that OK?

See, when you say, "I'm good enough" you're automatically drawing a
line and claiming to be above it. Which means that somewhere are two
people whose deeds and misdeeds are very much alike, except that one
of them is just a tiny bit worse than the other - just worse enough to
miss the glory train. Doesn't matter that you're comfortably above
that point. For your worldview to be consistent, it has to account
for that tipping point. So where is it?