[zeek]

Igzy

Theoretically your thesis is unassailable. But we don't live in theory. The fact is there are probably very few people who would say that Jesus was nothing special whatsoever and most of those people probably haven't studied him very carefully.

What you are arguing here is a false dilemma. The choice is not between Jesus is God and Jesus is "nothing special whatever". There are infinite degrees of value between those "all or nothing" extremes. Remember that they way we got to this point was that YOU couldn't imagine how the Jesus of the Gospels could be invented. But then you probably couldn't imagine the Hamlet of Shakespear either. So, exceeding your imagination hardly warrants the conclusion that every NT claim regarding Jesus is literally the case beginning with the putative virgin birth.

The truth is the a priori truth you are looking for is unattainable. You will get no proof. You will just get evidence. Proof requires no character. Evidence does, because there is a risk in taking a position that requires faith.

You were the one that raised the issue of "proof" not me. The idea that I am looking for it is yours not mine.

But here's the thing. All knowledge is based on faith in some way, if only the faith that you are able to perceive reality accurately.

This proposition, I take to be a mistake. But, perhaps it depends on how you are defining the significant terms. Faith and knowledge may just as earily construed as mutually exclusive. That is, the greater the knowledge one has, the less faith is necessary. If I am going to undergo major surgery and reliable statistics show that the surgery is successful 99.9% of the time, and relative confidence in a successful surgery is warrented. If the surgery is successful .1% of the time little confidence is warranted. But in neither case should confidence be confused with faith. One should not suppose that one knows the outcome even in the former instance where a favorable outcome was probable. Rather, confidence is based on correctly understanding the facts of the situation. We should recognize that whatever the odds, surgery is a gamble not a certainty. That calculation doesn't necessarily involve faith. Now faith may enter in to fill the gap of uncertainty. But, such faith is called faith precisely because it IS unwarranted. Thus, in this illustration, knowledge and faith are antithetical and mutually exclusive.

How do you know you can? And what is the point of these discussion if you can't?

You don't. It is a matter of greater or lesser probability. Why the need to suppose it otherwise?

So you've already taken some things on faith.

No. I have admitted that I don't know and limited myself to examination the evidence for a fallible estimate of the probability. Faith doesn't have to enter into the calculation at all. Do I know that my calculation is correct? No. It's a judgment based on how the matter appears in light of the evidence. If the issue is irrelevant to my existence, I can hold it in reserve for the rest of my life without deciding one way or the other. If my existence depends upon it, I must decide, but I have no need to claim certainty about it that is unwarranted unless I want to make myself feel better about it than is justified by knowledge.

For example, that we can gain knowledge, because if you didn't believe we could you would not be bothering with this discussion. You also seem to believe that gaining knowledge would be beneficial in some way. But how do you know? You don't. You just believe it.

If I think I know certainly one way or the other on these matters I am deluding myself. If I fill up the gap of uncertainty about these matters with faith, it doesn't make certainty any more justifiable. According to your way of thinking, faith seems to be self-delusion. I don't see it that way. For me, faith is my connection with what I suppose must be. I suppose to be, because I am unable to imagine it otherwise even though I have no way of proving it.

So my point is everyone takes all kinds of things on faith. So I'm always a bit bemused by people seeking "proof." Because proof is harder to come by than people think. And the irony is all proof is based on faith anyway. All real proof requires the acceptance of axioms or first principles, things which cannot be proved but are considered "self-evident." Well, considering something as self-evident is the same as taking it on faith.

This is exactly what I was describing above. These are a priori or analytic proofs. They are unavoidable because they are categorically necessary for thought. They may be doubted, but they cannot be avoided.

If God exists, then he would be a first principle, an axiom. That is why he cannot be proved, because there is no more fundamental truth upon which to base a proof of him.

God does not have to exist to be a first principle or axiom. To suppose that the proposition entails God's existence is the basis for the Ontological Argument which is controversial. Whether God is fundamental or not is the question, not necessarily the answer.

Much of what we call knowledge is the same thing. We observe what we perceive as reality and we make judgements. We don't operate in the realm of proof, but in the realm of evidence and common sense. Yes, that opens the door to all kinds of opinions, But what is reasonable, or should I say wise, is not infinitely malleable. Someone who thinks Jesus was nothing special is not a sober person. I'd take that to my grave. I can't prove it, but I still think it's a wise judgement. And like I said, proof is hard to come by, so we'd best get on with it make the best decisions we can.

Again this is a false dilemma or forced choice. I addressed the issue above. You seem to be thinking in terms of all or nothing or zero-sum. That presents it's own set of logical problems even for a Christian absolutist because of the logical absurdities that result from the problem of the Trinity as a concept.

Demanding proof, in other words, is not wise. Unless by proof you simply mean strong evidence. But you won't get proof in the absolute sense for much. And by the time you do decision time will have probably already passed.

I have addressed this above.

If you want to sit back and say "you can't prove it," well, I think that's a pretty hypocritical position, given all the things you live now by that you can't prove either.

I haven't done that. The burden of proof is on the one making the proposition.

So let's talk about evidence, not proof. Name a fictional character whose wisdom, stature and words approach those of Jesus. Now name one who, if he was concocted, was concocted by a motley group of mostly uneducated disciples running for their lives. If you want to add into that group monks altering the Bible then be my guest. But basically what you are describing is the greatest group of fiction writers in the history of the world. Now, is it likely that's what they were?

How about Nietzsche's Zarathustra? Anyway, the NT books were not necessarily written by the disciples to whom they were attributed by tradition. The evidence that they were is weak. It is improbable that the authors were uneducated because the texts reflect varying degrees of classical education. Either you misunderstand my position profoundly or you are making a strawman argument when you make the issue about a "group of fiction writers". I never asserted that the New Testament was a work of fiction or that Jesus is not an historical person.