Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

Interbane · Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:56 am

Stahrwe:


	Quote: Are you stipulating that you accept the evidence from the Talmud as being true and accurate?

Interbane:


	Quote: No, what we are doing here is not examining the truth of your evidence. You're merely submitting it.

Stahrwe:


	Quote: That is not correct.

Stahrwe:


	Quote: Such a document is accepted evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and its truthfulness is also assumed unless the opposing counsel can impeach it.

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

You are busted, point blank. Your self deception is amazing. You can collect all the evidence you want, but unless you support it, you're up crap creek without a paddle. Why would I continue a discussion in which you accumulate an unmanageable amount of unsupported evidence? Support it as you submit it, so that we can actually make some progress and it's not just you spamming the thread.

And pick the claim you are attempting to support.

stahrwe · Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:43 pm

Interbane wrote:

Stahrwe:


	Quote: Are you stipulating that you accept the evidence from the Talmud as being true and accurate?

Interbane:


	Quote: No, what we are doing here is not examining the truth of your evidence. You're merely submitting it.

Stahrwe:


	Quote: That is not correct.

Stahrwe:


	Quote: Such a document is accepted evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and its truthfulness is also assumed unless the opposing counsel can impeach it.

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

You are busted, point blank. Your self deception is amazing. You can collect all the evidence you want, but unless you support it, you're up crap creek without a paddle. Why would I continue a discussion in which you accumulate an unmanageable amount of unsupported evidence? Support it as you submit it, so that we can actually make some progress and it's not just you spamming the thread.

And pick the claim you are attempting to support.

That is all you have? Pretty weak criticism even if I agreed which I don't since evidence is not a proposition it is not subject to argumentum ad ignorantiam is it? Further, Under what conditions would one submit evidence which is false?

My previous points stand.
You initiated the discussion, and you agreed to the use of the FRE.
I am presenting pieces of evidence which will form a narrative which will link the elements together in such a way as to be unlikely that it false.

Why should you continue the discussion?
1) You have an opportunity to impeach the evidence.
2) You have an opportunity to inquire into a subject which you know little about but are obsessed with.
3) Why shouldn't you continue the discussion as I am doing all the work?

Frank 013 · Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:22 pm

Stahrwe,

Evidence must be autentic and credible to be admisable. No respectabe court will allow second hand stories from unknown writers as evidece unless it was proven accurate and relivant by other sources. Even then that "evidence" would likely be dismssed because of its anamyous nature.

After reading through this thread I cannot see which claim you are trying to support.

That should be the first thing stated or all of your "evidence" is wasted and without direction.

Later

Interbane · Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:39 pm


	Quote: Pretty weak criticism even if I agreed which I don't since evidence is not a proposition it is not subject to argumentum ad ignorantiam is it?

So, you're avoiding picking a claim to support so that it appears as if your evidence is not propositional? Your evidence... what is it evidence FOR? You can only avoid this question for so long. You'll inevitably have to answer it. Once you do, it will highlight which parts of your evidence are an attempt to support it. Which will make them propositional.


	Quote: I am presenting pieces of evidence which will form a narrative which will link the elements together in such a way as to be unlikely that it false.

Unlikely that it is false? That depends, entirely, on what your claim is. You should probably address this now so it's not a slap in the face later. The assymetry in the burden of proof rests directly upon the individual claims you're attempting to support. The two factors which will burden you like a camel are that your claims will be ontologically positive, and that they will not adhere to conventional wisdom.

stahrwe · Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:41 pm


	Frank 013 wrote: Stahrwe, Evidence must be autentic and credible to be admisable. No respectabe court will allow second hand stories from unknown writers as evidece unless it was proven accurate and relivant by other sources. Even then that "evidence" would likely be dismssed because of its anamyous nature. After reading through this thread I cannot see which claim you are trying to support. That should be the first thing stated or all of your "evidence" is wasted and without direction. Later

We went through this at the beginning of the thread. I suggest that you read the Federal Rules of Evidence. That and the underlying legal principles it is based on are the standard by which evidence is defined.

Interbane · Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:49 pm


	Quote: We went through this at the beginning of the thread. I suggest that you read the Federal Rules of Evidence. That and the underlying legal principles it is based on are the standard by which evidence is defined.

The only thing the FRE states is that we cannot dismiss your evidence as hearsay. As I've mentioned before, we can dismiss it for other reasons. Once your evidence is submitted per the FRE, we must consider the nature of the claim the evidence is meant to support. The nature of the claim you're attempting to support is does not fall under jurisprudence. It falls under philosophy.

Now, back to the original reason this thread was started. My request for you to support a claim.

Claim #1) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Evidence for claim #1) Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

stahrwe · Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:54 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: Pretty weak criticism even if I agreed which I don't since evidence is not a proposition it is not subject to argumentum ad ignorantiam is it?

So, you're avoiding picking a claim to support so that it appears as if your evidence is not propositional? Your evidence... what is it evidence FOR? You can only avoid this question for so long. You'll inevitably have to answer it. Once you do, it will highlight which parts of your evidence are an attempt to support it. Which will make them propositional.

Once again, I call your attention to the title of the thread: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. You are the one attempting to insert claims prematurely.

interbane wrote:


	Quote: I am presenting pieces of evidence which will form a narrative which will link the elements together in such a way as to be unlikely that it false.

Unlikely that it is false? That depends, entirely, on what your claim is. You should probably address this now so it's not a slap in the face later. The assymetry in the burden of proof rests directly upon the individual claims you're attempting to support. The two factors which will burden you like a camel are that your claims will be ontologically positive, and that they will not adhere to conventional wisdom.

Conventional wisdom, hmmm, that is a big term. What exactly is conventional wisdom? Is wisdom merely empirical knowledge or is there a subjective element? Is 'conventional' per BT.org or Bibleanswerman.net?

stahrwe · Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:05 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: We went through this at the beginning of the thread. I suggest that you read the Federal Rules of Evidence. That and the underlying legal principles it is based on are the standard by which evidence is defined.

The only thing the FRE states is that we cannot dismiss your evidence as hearsay. As I've mentioned before, we can dismiss it for other reasons. Once your evidence is submitted per the FRE, we must consider the nature of the claim the evidence is meant to support. The nature of the claim you're attempting to support is does not fall under jurisprudence. It falls under philosophy.

Now, back to the original reason this thread was started. My request for you to support a claim.

Claim #1) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Evidence for claim #1) Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Not only is the evidence admissable but it is up to the opposing party to impeach it or it stands for consideration. I will not be rushed into my summary before the time is right. I am submitting evidence, and you are squealing as I suspected would happen. Given the level of contention we are experiencing just getting some background material submitted and accepted, there is no reason for me to get ahead of you.

stahrwe · Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:09 pm


	Quote: Exodus 4: 24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Interbane · Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:32 pm


	Quote: Once again, I call your attention to the title of the thread: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. You are the one attempting to insert claims prematurely.

There is no such thing as inserting claims prematurely. Before you supply evidence, you need to specify what the evidence is even FOR.

Would you like me to change the name of this thread so you no longer have a reason to avoid the principle issue?


	Quote: Conventional wisdom, hmmm, that is a big term. What exactly is conventional wisdom? Is wisdom merely empirical knowledge or is there a subjective element?

That's an excellent question. There are many ways to define the criteria for demarcation. First, we have to know what we're dealing with. What claim are you supposedly supporting?

Interbane · Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:37 pm


	Quote: I am submitting evidence, and you are squealing as I suspected would happen.

I'm done until you take the necessary action to turn your passages INTO evidence.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Without an assertion toward which it applies, what you're posting cannot be called evidence. It doesn't fit the definition until you supply the assertion it's intended to support.

You do everything you possibly can to avoid the truth, don't you?

Frank 013 · Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:56 pm


	Quote: Stahrwe Not only is the evidence admissable but it is up to the opposing party to impeach it or it stands for consideration.

Even if that were true of this type of evidence (which it is not) you would still have to get this past a judge… and no honest judge that I know of would admit such a thing and no respctable lawyer would ever even try to admit it.

Outdated anonymous material is simply not admissible. It cannot be checked for accuracy, or credibility which makes it unreliable at best.

So who is the judge for this case and what is the case about?

If you want to use the justice system's standards for evidence then you should also follow its rules. the opposing party has the right to know what they are arguing for or against… and you are apparently not telling.

This is not fair in a court proceeding because both parties need time to consider their positions.

If you refuse that simple courtesy I will simply decide you have lost this argument because of improper procedure (cheating).

And while I am not the judge in this case, I don’t have to be a party to your petty games either.

Later

stahrwe · Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:01 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: I am submitting evidence, and you are squealing as I suspected would happen.

I'm done until you take the necessary action to turn your passages INTO evidence.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Without an assertion toward which it applies, what you're posting cannot be called evidence. It doesn't fit the definition until you supply the assertion it's intended to support.

You do everything you possibly can to avoid the truth, don't you?

Under normal, circumstances, with an objectiver arbiter, I would agree, but the circumstances we are currently involved in are not 'normal'. It is clear from discussions, both in this thread and others that the demand for 'evidence' in support of Biblical 'claims' is a ruse as NO one, and I asked repeatedly, would define what evidence was acceptable. In fact, no evidence would be acceptable and the plan is to spring what ever preconstructed trap one has been sold at your first opportunity. That might take the form of the Day 4 problem, or whatever, but instead of actually being substanative such 'traps' are fictions which serve only to divert the discussion. In this discussion, it is not about specific claims as it does not say; "Specific Bible Claims and their evidence. It says Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. In fact, I am proceeding to build case for the interrelation of the Bible which I firmly believe will be consistent with an epistemological framework.

You may attempt to work yourself up into a fabricated state of 'righteous' indignation so you can claim that you are abandoning the discussion but it will not convince me and I doubt others will be convinced though they may say so.

Frank 013 · Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:14 pm

Stahrwe

The reason that no evidence has been accepted is because no substantial evidence exists to support your claims. Every one of your apologetics has been stripped to its core and exposed as empty.

You see this as us being to hard on your “evidence” when in reality it is the “evidence” that is lacking… its too bad that you cannot see this simple truth.

Try to remember that when the authenticity/reliability of a thing like this is in question you cannot point to it for conformation, you have to look outside of the text for good evidence... And unfortunately in this case you are bound to be disappointed.

Later

Interbane · Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:14 pm

Ahh. Your claim is that the entire bible is true?

Easy enough.

Genesis 19:
"26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."

This is an extraordinary claim. Observation then inductive reasoning tells us that such a phenomenon simply doesn't occur. This is also an ontologically positive claim, and goes against conventional wisdom. Therefore the burden of proof on you is enormous. Unless you can supply enough evidence to satisfy this burden of proof, we can dismiss this passage as fabricated.

If this passage is fabricated, there is no reason the rest of the bible is immune to fabrication. I hereby impeach the entire bible until you support each passage individually. The mundane events, such as the birth of a king, will be exceptionally easy to supply evidence for. However, with the dissection of the bible into it's various constituents, we see that each and every claim has a varying amount of the burden of proof which you must fulfill. Many claims do not go against conventional wisdom. However, many do. Some are not ontologically positive, however, most are.

Hoping to consolidate a collection of passages into a harmonized narrative does not fulfil the burden of proof on those passages which are both ontologically positive and go against conventional wisdom.


	Quote: It is clear from discussions, both in this thread and others that the demand for 'evidence' in support of Biblical 'claims' is a ruse as NO one, and I asked repeatedly, would define what evidence was acceptable. In fact, no evidence would be acceptable and the plan is to spring what ever preconstructed trap one has been sold at your first opportunity.

Of course it's a ruse. However, I defined evidence multiple times. Did you miraculously develop cateracts and those presice moments to miss my definition? :lol:

I think the truth is, you pretended not to see my definition so you could steer the conversation towards the 'legal' definition. Which wasn't even a definition, it was an arbitrary ruled created long ago in the event trivial facts would be helful in a case, but the author couldn't be found. Such trivial facts include addresses, birthdates, postal addresses, etc. In these cases, they are justly considered exemptions to the hearsay rule since they can be ruled out as fabrications; "For ancient documents the policy justification for removing the hearsay bar is that it is very unlikely that the declarant would have been lying in a way intended to influence the outcome of a trial that occurs 20 years or more after the declarant's statement... Protection from the prohibition of the hearsay rule does not guarantee admissibility. And admissibility does not guarantee that the trier of fact will believe an item of evidence."

Which makes it painfully obvious that the legal policies as they are written are meant soley for the arbitration of legal disputes. The policy justification does not apply to ancient documents which are concerned with the belief of the people who may potentially read it.

Forum rules

Epistemology and Biblical Evidence Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!