Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

Interbane · Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:42 pm


	Quote: You are demanding that in order to validate a miracle I must be able to duplicate the miracle in a lab. Talk about a logical trainwreck.

No, that's not what I'm demanding. YOU read the paragraph again.


	Quote: That my friend if what damages our kids and holds our eduction system back.

Of course there are multiple causes. Are you denying that your anti-scientific propoganda is not one of the causes?

It is, and it's despicable.

stahrwe · Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:57 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: You are demanding that in order to validate a miracle I must be able to duplicate the miracle in a lab. Talk about a logical trainwreck.

No, that's not what I'm demanding. YOU read the paragraph again.


	Quote: That my friend if what damages our kids and holds our eduction system back.

I read it again, I don't see any difference between what it says and what I interpreted it to mean.


	Interbane wrote: Of course there are multiple causes. Are you denying that your anti-scientific propoganda is not one of the causes? It is, and it's despicable.

I am indeed stating for the record not only that religion and Christianity are not in any way culpable but that the whole concept of YEC is also in no way a factor in the low level of education in this country. Look at education in the US prior to the 1960's and after.

johnson1010 · Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:02 pm

So...

Demanding that a claim that defies ALL known instances of natural behavior have proof is rediculous.

Damanding that we accept the claim itself AS proof of the event that flies in the face of all known instances of natural behavior is not rediculous.

It is a logical trainwreck to think miracles are impossible by their definition.

Star, once again..... sigh.

This is the god exception. Using evidence serves us well in all matters of life and it is to be relied upon with our very lives, over and over again, in all instances.... except when it comes to your favorite fairy tale.

Then, nothing is off the table, nothing is impossible, we should believe absolutely everything, because the dehydrated brains of bronze-age clan-cheifs took their deluded hand-me-down creation myths and scribbled them on paper.

This is a reasonable excuse to abondon all your personal past experience and believe a guy can multiply bread by waving his hand over it and casting a spell.

stahrwe · Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:25 pm


	johnson1010 wrote: So... Demanding that a claim that defies ALL known instances of natural behavior have proof is rediculous. Damanding that we accept the claim itself AS proof of the event that flies in the face of all known instances of natural behavior is not rediculous. It is a logical trainwreck to think miracles are impossible by their definition. Star, once again..... sigh.

first of all, thank you for posting.
Second, you are missing the point of the game. The fun part is what I have to do to prove a miracle can happen is to perform a miracle. Now you must admit that an atheist should be able to sit back and smile at the irony of that as a YEC spins out like a dervish trying to do that.


	Quote: This is the god exception. Using evidence serves us well in all matters of life and it is to be relied upon with our very lives, over and over again, in all instances.... except when it comes to your favorite fairy tale. Then, nothing is off the table, nothing is impossible, we should believe absolutely everything, because the dehydrated brains of bronze-age clan-cheifs took their deluded hand-me-down creation myths and scribbled them on paper. This is a reasonable excuse to abondon all your personal past experience and believe a guy can multiply bread by waving his hand over it and casting a spell.

You are assuming that we take God to be our deus ex machina. That is not the case at all. And you misunderstand the nature of what happened with the bread and fish. It was not a 'spell' which invokes an external force, and I believe a practitioner of same would tell you that the force involved was a natural one (where is a witch when you need one) while what Jesus did, He did of Himself.

Interbane · Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:07 pm


	Quote: I read it again, I don't see any difference between what it says and what I interpreted it to mean.

Right, your undistilled bias only allows you to interpret things in a way which supports your position, even if the author intends something completely different. Here: 'there is no evidence nor reasoning which shows that any miracle has ever happened.'

Which, in the context of my paragraph, is a MINOR point. Why do you so convenienly ignore the other points I made? Do you think you have a good understanding of observation and induction and the epistemic limits of science and evidence? Because you don't, and that is a MAJOR point.


	Quote: I am indeed stating for the record not only that religion and Christianity are not in any way culpable but that the whole concept of YEC is also in no way a factor in the low level of education in this country. Look at education in the US prior to the 1960's and after.

You admitted to teaching children that abiogenesis was impossible by putting lego's in a bag, or some such nonsense. It doesn't matter what you "state for the record". The fact is, you're helping to undermine US education. You're "teaching" children to mistrust science. Do you actually believe your equivocations and rationalizations?

Interbane · Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:08 pm


	Quote: The fun part is what I have to do to prove a miracle can happen is to perform a miracle.

This is false.

stahrwe · Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:25 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: I read it again, I don't see any difference between what it says and what I interpreted it to mean.

Right, your undistilled bias only allows you to interpret things in a way which supports your position, even if the author intends something completely different. Here: 'there is no evidence nor reasoning which shows that any miracle has ever happened.'

Which, in the context of my paragraph, is a MINOR point. Why do you so convenienly ignore the other points I made? Do you think you have a good understanding of observation and induction and the epistemic limits of science and evidence? Because you don't, and that is a MAJOR point.

I already addressed the issue of contemporary souces which was the opening part of the paragraph.


	Quote: stahrwe said: I am indeed stating for the record not only that religion and Christianity are not in any way culpable but that the whole concept of YEC is also in no way a factor in the low level of education in this country. Look at education in the US prior to the 1960's and after.


	interbane wrote: You admitted to teaching children that abiogenesis was impossible by putting lego's in a bag, or some such nonsense. It doesn't matter what you "state for the record". The fact is, you're helping to undermine US education. You're "teaching" children to mistrust science. Do you actually believe your equivocations and rationalizations?

First of all, they were Bionicles.
Second, I don't think we were getting as deep as abilgenesis, I was merely asking if the parts would automatically assemble together just by shaking.
Third, it was a Sunday School class not a publich school class but I think that might be a good demonstration to do in a PS science setting.
Difference between mistrusting something and questioning it.

Interbane · Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:02 pm


	Quote: I already addressed the issue of contemporary souces which was the opening part of the paragraph.

What issue? This doesn't relate to my post. I think you are replying to a different thread.


	Quote: Difference between mistrusting something and questioning it.

Yes, there certainly is. Instilling mistrust is even worse, especially when it's unfounded and when the teacher is ignorant of epistemology. Don't you feel any shame?

johnson1010 · Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:59 pm

today at the fair, i noticed a model dinosaur foot print displayed prominently at a religious booth.

Sure enough, i asked about it, and the lady showed me other things, such as a model dinosaur egg and said, "We are showing some evidence of creation science."

surely.

stahrwe · Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:24 am

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: I already addressed the issue of contemporary souces which was the opening part of the paragraph.

What issue? This doesn't relate to my post. I think you are replying to a different thread.

Pay attention now,


	interbane wrote: above in this thread "The parameters for what constitutes evidence and what that evidence supports are VASTLY more strict that you think. For even the most mundane parts of the bible to be well supported, there would need to be DOZENS of indisputable contemporary sources which matched up on many various events of Jesus' life. EVEN ...


	Quote: Difference between mistrusting something and questioning it.


	interbane wrote: Yes, there certainly is. Instilling mistrust is even worse, especially when it's unfounded and when the teacher is ignorant of epistemology. Don't you feel any shame?

Consider this from my old notes, source lost: "Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he also has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Jones's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job."

Interbane · Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:30 am

That you have notes about such a thing does not mean you're capable of fully understanding them.

You're still not getting it. For a critical examination of a book such as the bible, we would need to disambiguate which parts are merely storytelling narratives, and which parts are 'claims'. For example, dialogue between two various characters has no way of being validated. The dialogue itself cannot be used as evidence, since the corroboration would take place on part of the authors of the bible. Meaning, if Framk mentions the flood that happened 200 years ago, that is not evidence of a flood. It's not even anecdotal, since the true voice of the dialogue is actually the authors, who could not only author the part about he flood(or read about it), but he could manipulate the dialogue in different parts of the book to match. This is fundamental to authorship, making sure your story is coherent, as I'm sure you know.

So dialogue cannot be considered to be a claim. We also need not worry about minor mundane events. For instance, that a donkey walked ten feet to the left. Inductively from past observations we know such things to be common occurances. However, if the donkey were to start speaking, that is suddenly a claim, since it involves something which we do not observe.

So if you want to get an idea of how far off your ideas about "evidence and reasoning" are, let's start compiling evidence. The first parts aren't really cut and dry claims, but this is definitely one:

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?

Claim #2) And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Evidence for claim #2) Do you have any to support this claim?

Claim #3) Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Evidence for claim #3) Anything?

Remember, while the evidence may be similar between them, they each are different claims requiring unique evidence according to their details. Let's skip futher down the list.

Claim # 5,079) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Evidence for claim #5,079) How about here? Anything?

Actually, which of the thousands of claims are you capable of supporting? I'm sure there are quite a few, honestly. Such as certain actions of Pontius Pilate or gatherings in certain locations, or the existence of certain people. A couple of those claims I'm sure are very well supported. Remember, the best lie contains half-truths. However, for the existence of Jesus, a passing reference by Josephus is not enough, especially since the reference is under question. Sure, it is evidence. It is evidence weakened by the skepticism of later forgeries. However, even if you were to believe(not "know") Josephus actually wrote the sentence in question, which claims would that sentence support?

The only thing it would support is that there was likely a person named Jesus, who was brother to James(or whatever it says). It would not be evidence of ANYTHING else. Josephus passage is not evidence that Jesus did miracles. You would need evidence that specifically supported those claims.

Is it starting to sink in why theologians the world over realize they only have FAITH? Which means, belief, without any good evidence or reasoning. In other words, blind faith. You are late in joining this bandwagon not because THEY are wrong, but because YOU are wrong, about the fundamentals of epistemology.

stahrwe · Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:12 am


	Interbane wrote: That you have notes about such a thing does not mean you're capable of fully understanding them. You're still not getting it. For a critical examination of a book such as the bible, we would need to disambiguate which parts are merely storytelling narratives, and which parts are 'claims'.

I beg to differ with you. I get it and have gotten it all along. Your above statement supports what I have been calling for all along, a systematice, book by book study of the Bible. What you are calling for above is not impossible. The way we are doing it now is like throwing Bible verses in the air like clay pigeons with you guys trying to shoot them down and me trying to keep you from doing so. There is no coherent discussion. So you don't like the Bible. Is that a reason not to study it?


	interbane wrote: For example, dialogue between two various characters has no way of being validated. The dialogue itself cannot be used as evidence, since the corroboration would take place on part of the authors of the bible. Meaning, if Framk mentions the flood that happened 200 years ago, that is not evidence of a flood. It's not even anecdotal, since the true voice of the dialogue is actually the authors, who could not only author the part about he flood(or read about it), but he could manipulate the dialogue in different parts of the book to match. This is fundamental to authorship, making sure your story is coherent, as I'm sure you know. So dialogue cannot be considered to be a claim. We also need not worry about minor mundane events. For instance, that a donkey walked ten feet to the left. Inductively from past observations we know such things to be common occurances. However, if the donkey were to start speaking, that is suddenly a claim, since it involves something which we do not observe. So if you want to get an idea of how far off your ideas about "evidence and reasoning" are, let's start compiling evidence. The first parts aren't really cut and dry claims, but this is definitely one: 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? Claim #2) And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. Evidence for claim #2) Do you have any to support this claim? Claim #3) Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. Evidence for claim #3) Anything? Remember, while the evidence may be similar between them, they each are different claims requiring unique evidence according to their details. Let's skip futher down the list. Claim # 5,079) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Evidence for claim #5,079) How about here? Anything? Actually, which of the thousands of claims are you capable of supporting? I'm sure there are quite a few, honestly. Such as certain actions of Pontius Pilate or gatherings in certain locations, or the existence of certain people. A couple of those claims I'm sure are very well supported. Remember, the best lie contains half-truths. However, for the existence of Jesus, a passing reference by Josephus is not enough, especially since the reference is under question. Sure, it is evidence. It is evidence weakened by the skepticism of later forgeries. However, even if you were to believe(not "know") Josephus actually wrote the sentence in question, which claims would that sentence support? The only thing it would support is that there was likely a person named Jesus, who was brother to James(or whatever it says). It would not be evidence of ANYTHING else. Josephus passage is not evidence that Jesus did miracles. You would need evidence that specifically supported those claims. Is it starting to sink in why theologians the world over realize they only have FAITH? Which means, belief, without any good evidence or reasoning. In other words, blind faith. You are late in joining this bandwagon not because THEY are wrong, but because YOU are wrong, about the fundamentals of epistemology.

You keep calling for evidence. What would be acceptable to you as evidence? We have been through this argument before. I suspect that nothin I could produce, including God Himself, would be acceptable to you as evidence.

Interbane · Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:18 am

So you're questioning my understanding of evidence? Okay, that's a good start. What do YOU consider evidence? What would you consider as evidence that would constitute justified belief in Claim #1? I've got my electronic counter ready for the fallacies you're about to commit. Do some research first, then get back to me. Remember, epistemology. Evidence.

stahrwe · Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:37 am


	Interbane wrote: So you're questioning my understanding of evidence? Okay, that's a good start. What do YOU consider evidence? What would you consider as evidence that would constitute justified belief in Claim #1? I've got my electronic counter ready for the fallacies you're about to commit. Do some research first, then get back to me. Remember, epistemology. Evidence.

I prefer to use my fingers to keep track.

I don't see any point in my identifying types of evidence since you are the one arbitrating validity. On that basis, I need to know what you would accept. I think we have been down this road before and it turned out there was nothing you would accept. I think we even posited that God showed up and you wanted to start taking His blood pressure and pulse, for what purpose, I don't know. So, what would convice you?

Interbane · Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:10 pm


	Quote: On that basis, I need to know what you would accept.

Whatever fits this criteria:
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof."

If you say I arbitrate the validity, that doesn't mean I create and command the surrounding epistemology. It means I'll call you out when you violate epistemic logic. It is not MY fault if you violate epistemic logic and commit fallacies. You're setting up a straw man here.


	Quote: I think we even posited that God showed up and you wanted to start taking His blood pressure and pulse, for what purpose, I don't know.

There is a categorical difference between a "intuition pump" such as what you mention above and "evidence". Your intuition pump may potentially 'become' evidence if that event actually happened. However, as it stands it is only a piece of reasoning rather than evidence. I'm not saying that reasoning is necessarily less than the evidence, but alone it is not sufficient. First, supply the "evidence", then we can examine that evidence and use "reasoning" to locate precisely what the evidence supports.

If you want to discuss "what I'd accept" as evidence rather than the actual evidence itself, your intuition pump applies. If a man came to me and asked me to read his blood pressure and pulse, I would consider that evidence that he's a man. I wouldn't believe him if he "told" me he was god. Would you? If you remember, the way this faulty intuition pump ended was that I said I should fly to Florida and tell you I'm god so you could worship me. The problem here(which I shouldn't have to explain) is that the claim this person is making(that he is god) is also in need of evidentiary support. So, if someone came to me claiming to be god, what evidence does he have to reinforce that claim? If you remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If he morphed into a unicorn, I would likely believe he is god. However, remember the third law of prediction: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Which means, we would have to rule out sufficiently advanced technology as the reason the person "morphed". I'm not an expert there, so I would withhold judgement.

So, in a nutshell, a person "morphing" into a unicorn would be evidence that that person is god. However, we must rely on an accumulation of evidence before 'belief is justified'. Which means, that event alone, although it is indeed evidence, would not be enough to justify belief. Because, as I'm sure you can reason out yourself, we would have to rule out my possibly hallucinating, and possible sufficiently advanced technology first. The reason is, these two "hypotheses" are far more parsimonious because, by induction from observation, we know they are 'justified, true' explanations for many events. Which means, we would need more evidence than just one single 'morph'.

In any case, all of that is an intuition pump. It is not evidence for claim #1. Even if you respond to the paragraphs about this intuition pump, ALSO supply evidence for claim #1. Just throw some evidence out there, we'll decide together whether or not it is in fact evidence. Anything at all, what do you have?

Forum rules

Epistemology and Biblical Evidence Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!