I am dealing with the following argument:
Spring heeled Jack (SHJ) to be fictional because he is so outlandish
Jesus Miracles are as outlandish as SHJ Therefore
Jesus miracles are fictional too.
Of course the person making this argument didn't brake it down this way. The real point of it seems to be that if we doubt one amazing absurdly ridiculous story then we must doubt all amazing ridiculous stories. SHJ was a character in London in the 1830's 60 1890's who was said to look grotesquely ugly, to vomit blue flame and to be able to leap huge distances, 9-21 feet in the air. He was said to scratch women up with long fingernails and tear off their clothes. He terrorized London in that era was was said to be absoutely real.
I pointed out that this is an argument from analogy the atheist making it said "I think you really beileve in SHJ." I said it seems logical to me that it was probably based upon some incident and his qualities were exaggerated. Like maybe a wino who looked ugly climbed up a wall and was said to have leaped over it. Maybe he leaped it like Jackie Chan can leap huge heights, in stages, launching off part of the wall on to another part. Or not whatever. The atheist says "good luck getting an intelligent answer out of Metacrock."
Try as I might I cannot get the to see the illogic of argument from analogy.IF we find this one case absurd that has to mean the New Testament is false because it is absur too. But of course it's just his opinion as to what is absurd and what's believeable ans what is not. Of cousrse that is not a logical argument. the idea that if we find one case so we msut find another case so is toally illogiacal because i'ts arguing from analogy which is false awlays. its' an informal fallcy. So because I don't think in informaal fallacies that means I"m stupid?
why do people think like this? this is what amazes me so, about people on message boards why are there so many stupid ones?