Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

Interbane · Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:21 pm

I have another one!

Bear up, my child, bear up; Zeus who oversees and directs all things is still mighty in heaven.
Sophocles

Therefore Zeus exists! I dare you try try and impeach this evidence!!!

Interbane · Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:25 pm

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.” - Koran

So Muhammad is the prophet and not Jesus! This evidence is remarkable!! And it's true! Right? Can you impeach it?

stahrwe · Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:32 am


	Interbane wrote: I asked for clarification earlier. What claim are you defending? There must be something that the evidence supports. You never clarified what that something was for this second batch of evidence. Second, which of the claims in your package of evidence do you wish to be evidence? Each proposition is an independant claim. Wikipedia entry on the Federal Rules of Evidence: "By admitting an ancient document into evidence, it is presumed only that the document is what it purports to be, but there are no presumptions about the truth of the document's contents. A jury can still decide that the author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it." Wikipedia entry on Burden of Proof: Holder of the burden When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3] This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

You are still confused my friend.

#1, the title of the thread is epistemology and Biblical Evidence. You have cited claims you say the Bible makes and therefore the entire Bible is potentially evidence as it is one book of interrelated material.
That is the key and will be used to eventually support all claims.

As to the truthfulness of evidence, it is correct that an ultimate decision is made about which party has proven his or her point but that occurs only after ALL the evidence is heard. One may introduce evidence as is or buttress it. Either way, it is up the opposing counsel to impeach if it possible using material which also meets the rules of evidence. If the evidence is not impeached then it stands.

stahrwe · Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:40 am

Interbane seems to have decided to deviate from the discussion. Whether his deviation is a 'detour' or a 'frollic' remains to be seen. I suspect it is the latter and if this was an actual court case he would risk being held in contempt.

The court might remind Interbane that this discussion is Epistemology and the Bible, not '... and Zeus,' or '...and Mohammed,' or '...and Dianetics,' or '... any other irrelevant comment Interbane chooses to make.'

Interbane · Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:59 am


	Quote: You have cited claims you say the Bible makes and therefore the entire Bible is potentially evidence as it is one book of interrelated material.

No, the entire bible is not evidence. That some girl named Rhoda potentially existed is not evidence of the claim that god created man. That is non sequitur. So, not only do you have to show how the evidence supports the claim, you have to show support for the evidence.


	Quote: One may introduce evidence as is or buttress it. Either way, it is up the opposing counsel to impeach if it possible using material which also meets the rules of evidence. If the evidence is not impeached then it stands.

It is your claim. You have the burden of proof. Stop equivocating. I do not need any evidence. I don't even need to open my mouth. I'm a silent witness while you attempt to make your case.

You say that "if the evidence is not impeached then it stands". That is the dictionary definition of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. You can find it in your signature. You're committing a fallacy. Repeatedly.

stahrwe · Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:49 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: You have cited claims you say the Bible makes and therefore the entire Bible is potentially evidence as it is one book of interrelated material.

No, the entire bible is not evidence. That some girl named Rhoda potentially existed is not evidence of the claim that god created man. That is non sequitur. So, not only do you have to show how the evidence supports the claim, you have to show support for the evidence.


	Quote: One may introduce evidence as is or buttress it. Either way, it is up the opposing counsel to impeach if it possible using material which also meets the rules of evidence. If the evidence is not impeached then it stands.

It is your claim. You have the burden of proof. Stop equivocating. I do not need any evidence. I don't even need to open my mouth. I'm a silent witness while you attempt to make your case.

You say that "if the evidence is not impeached then it stands". That is the dictionary definition of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. You can find it in your signature. You're committing a fallacy. Repeatedly.

Then every court in the United States and reaching back into English Common Law the basis for consideration of evidence has been established. It was summarized in the Federal Rules of Evidence which you agreed to abide by in this discussion. My reason for citing them was to agree in advance on an objective process for consideration of evidence. You were presented with the opportunity to agree or object to that standard. You chose, as you should have, to agree. Your decision to reverse youself now is regrettable but frankly I expected it from the beginning. Your position that I to prove evidence is reminiscient of the old 'three men check into a hotel' puzzle. It's success rests on misdirection of focus which is what you are doing.

I do thank you for this discussion as it has been most helpful to me.

BTW, regarding the applicability of the rule of ancient documents to L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics, I suggest that you read L. Ron Hubbard; Messiah or Madman? by Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.

Interbane · Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:11 pm


	Quote: I do thank you for this discussion as it has been most helpful to me.

I can't see how. You're still not understanding why the act of submitting evidence does not equate to supporting a claim. You must make the connections. You must provide the reasoning. It's your evidence, work it.


	Quote: It was summarized in the Federal Rules of Evidence which you agreed to abide by in this discussion. My reason for citing them was to agree in advance on an objective process for consideration of evidence.

The Federal Rules of Evidence do not make any statements concerning the veracity of the evidence, only the admissibility. The courts have(historically) done nothing wrong, and the Federal Rules of Evidence are not based on fallacies. The problem here is that you think the Federal Rules of Evidence have something to say about the content of the evidence which is submitted. The Federal Rules of Evidence say nothing about whether or not the evidence you provide is [true/accurate/descriptive/forged/etc.] They merely state that you are authorized to submit the evidence in question.

What we also need to make clear here is that even though we're using the FRE as the criteria for the demarcation of evidence, this is still a philosophical debate. No one is on trial, and there is no jury nor a judge. There is not much point in my saying this other than the fact that it must be said. I'm still agreeing to use the Federal Rules of Evidence to demarcate what constitutes evidence, but beyond the submission of evidence this is a philosophical debate.

Now, based on the evidence you submitted, there is no connection whatsoever between your evidence and 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."

We can focus on a different claim if you wish. You need to understand that by copy/pasting the above claim, I'm giving you a claim to support. That's quite unfair. You're allowed to make a different claim if you wish. Present it in the structure of a proposition. Please follow and read the link to understand how to format the claim you wish to make. The condition is that it must be a single proposition from the bible. A collection of passages is actually more than one claim.

For example, if I said: "I went outside today and mowed the lawn. Then, nearing the end of my task, an alien UFO hovered overhead and abducted me."

In that case, I'm making more than one claim. I'm making the claim that 1] I've mowed the lawn. I'm also making the claim that 2] I was abducted by aliens. You must be very clear about which claim you wish to make, or which claim from the bible that you wish to support. Only after you have made such a claim can you submit evidence to support it. I'm saying this because the passages you submitted previously had nothing whatsoever to do with the claims at the beginning of this thread.

stahrwe · Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:20 pm

You may continue to attempt to rush the process but I will not be distracted. If you accept the evidence of the Peter/Rhoda story we may proceed and will eventually get to your material but for the present the thread is not the claims of the Bible, it is Epistemology and Biblical Evidence.

Do you accept as accurate the evidence I submitted regarding the Rhoda/Peter story? If not, what evidence do you have to impeach it? Once you accept Peter/Rhoda we can move on.

Interbane · Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:44 pm


	Quote: You may continue to attempt to rush the process but I will not be distracted.

You are the one guilty of rushing things. You're attempting to not only submit evidence, but also get me to accept it as true. That is a two step process, not a single step process as you're attempting to make it. Just because we are able to label something "evidence" does not automatically also mean that it is true. Before I even enter the process, you not only have to submit your evidence, but also show how it supports your claim. You're repeatedly attempting to do both at the same time over and over again, and claiming that it's now my turn to impeach the evidence. As I've mentioned, that attempt commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.


	Quote: Do you accept as accurate the evidence I submitted regarding the Rhoda/Peter story? If not, what evidence do you have to impeach it? Once you accept Peter/Rhoda we can move on.

I have already said I accepted your evidence. But what I do not accept is your attempt to smuggle a "truth value" in with the evidence upon submission. Your evidence is accepted, but we still have not analyzed it to determine whether or not its contents support your claim, or whether or not it's contents are even true. When we analyze your claim to determine its truth value, I will present evidence or reasoning to impeach it.

stahrwe · Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:40 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: You may continue to attempt to rush the process but I will not be distracted.

You are the one guilty of rushing things. You're attempting to not only submit evidence, but also get me to accept it as true. That is a two step process, not a single step process as you're attempting to make it. Just because we are able to label something "evidence" does not automatically also mean that it is true. Before I even enter the process, you not only have to submit your evidence, but also show how it supports your claim. You're repeatedly attempting to do both at the same time over and over again, and claiming that it's now my turn to impeach the evidence. As I've mentioned, that attempt commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.


	Quote: Do you accept as accurate the evidence I submitted regarding the Rhoda/Peter story? If not, what evidence do you have to impeach it? Once you accept Peter/Rhoda we can move on.

I have already said I accepted your evidence. But what I do not accept is your attempt to smuggle a "truth value" in with the evidence upon submission. Your evidence is accepted, but we still have not analyzed it to determine whether or not its contents support your claim, or whether or not it's contents are even true. When we analyze your claim to determine its truth value, I will present evidence or reasoning to impeach it.

Thank you.
The process will continue shortly.

Robert Tulip · Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:50 am

We are unlikely to find credible evidence for dubious biblical claims as they are probably not true. There is far more fiction in the Bible than Christians are ready and willing to admit. The writers had ample motive and opportunity to invent the myths that are now seen as gospel truth.

In my opinion Paul probably existed and wrote the main letters ascribed to him, but the stories about Jesus, Abraham and Moses are mainly fiction. They have so much mythic content in their personalities that any historical kernel to their stories is a tiny fraction. Paul probably got very confused by someone telling him about the myth of Christ. He took it for fact and wrote up the story which then turned into a viral meme, inspiring the fantasy of the gospels.

As for Adam and Noah, they are in the same league as Zeus and Apollo. Myths.

stahrwe · Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:35 am


	Robert Tulip wrote: We are unlikely to find credible evidence for dubious biblical claims as they are probably not true. There is far more fiction in the Bible than Christians are ready and willing to admit. The writers had ample motive and opportunity to invent the myths that are now seen as gospel truth. In my opinion Paul probably existed and wrote the main letters ascribed to him, but the stories about Jesus, Abraham and Moses are mainly fiction. They have so much mythic content in their personalities that any historical kernel to their stories is a tiny fraction. Paul probably got very confused by someone telling him about the myth of Christ. He took it for fact and wrote up the story which then turned into a viral meme, inspiring the fantasy of the gospels. As for Adam and Noah, they are in the same league as Zeus and Apollo. Myths.

Define 'evidence'.

Interbane · Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:52 am

I've defined evidence for you a few times now Stahrwe, sometimes in bold since you so stubbornly refuse to accept the definition. This discussion goes in circles because you cannot accept the fact that you only have faith. You can't "force" the evidence into existence. And you can't somehow "redefine" non-evidence into becoming evidence. The rationalizations you apply to the bible will not work when you apply them to a real epistemic discussion. I stopped taking fingers because you keep committing the same fallacies and refuse to see your error. You'd be between twenty and thirty fallacies now.

None of the evidence you've provided so far is even supported by anything. The evidence itself is just another set of unsupported claims. You can't magically negate the need for these claims to be supported, by using the FRE or anything else. The set of passages with Rhoda, if you cannot support them, then you only have faith in their truth. That does not suffice in a debate. There is no way you can "reason" it into sufficing, no matter what criteria you use for the selection of evidence.

stahrwe · Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:14 am


	Interbane wrote: I've defined evidence for you a few times now Stahrwe, sometimes in bold since you so stubbornly refuse to accept the definition. This discussion goes in circles because you cannot accept the fact that you only have faith. You can't "force" the evidence into existence. And you can't somehow "redefine" non-evidence into becoming evidence. The rationalizations you apply to the bible will not work when you apply them to a real epistemic discussion. I stopped taking fingers because you keep committing the same fallacies and refuse to see your error. You'd be between twenty and thirty fallacies now. None of the evidence you've provided so far is even supported by anything. The evidence itself is just another set of unsupported claims. You can't magically negate the need for these claims to be supported, by using the FRE or anything else. The set of passages with Rhoda, if you cannot support them, then you only have faith in their truth. That does not suffice in a debate. There is no way you can "reason" it into sufficing, no matter what criteria you use for the selection of evidence.

Evidence is information submitted in support of a position and is acceptable provided that it meets the requirements of the FRE. It was necessary for us to establish that objective standard in advance to prevent what you are attempting to do now. The FRE provides that the information provided is entitled to be considered unless the opposing counsel can impeach it. Consideration does not mean acceptance merely that it cannot be rejected and must be included in the evaluation.

stahrwe · Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:26 am

As my next exhibit I submit the entry for gentiles found in the Jewish Encyclopedia online. This is a link to the actual encyclopedia, not to a website interpreting the encyclopedia. I would post the entire entry but it is rather long so I have just included a few examples of the hatred of Jews for gentiles.

Eleazar of Modi'im, in reference to Micah iv. 5, explains that Israel, though guilty of the same sins as the Gentiles, will not enter hell, while the Gentiles will (Cant. R. ii. 1). In another of his homilies, however, he speaks of the joy with which the Gentiles blessed Israel for having accepted the Decalogue (Zeb. 116a). On the whole, he is very bitter in his condemnations of the heathen. "They profit by their deeds of love and benevolence to slander Israel" (referring to Jer. xl. 3; B. B. 10a).

Eleazar ben Azariah maintains, on the basis of Ex. xxi. 1, that a judgment rendered by a non-Jewish (Roman) court is not valid for a Jew (Mek., Mishpaṭim).

Akiba, In a dialogue, Israel's monotheism is shown to be far superior to the ever-changing belief of the Gentiles (Mek., Yitro, x.). His contempt for the folly of idolatry as practised by the Romans is apparent in his conversation with Rufus, in which he compares the gods to dogs (Tan. Terumah, ed. Stettin, p. 139; comp. Grätz, "Gesch." iv. 447).

Simon ben Yoḥai is preeminently the anti-Gentile teacher. In a collection of three sayings of his, beginning with the keyword (Yer. Ḳid. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-laḥ, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20), is found the expression, often quoted by anti-Semites, "Ṭob shebe-goyyim harog" (="The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed").

On the basis of Hab. iii. 6, Simon b. Yoḥai argued that, of all the nations, Israel alone was worthy to receive the Law (Lev. R. xiii.). The Gentiles, according to him, would not observe the seven laws given to the Noachidæ (Tosef., Soṭah, viii. 7; Soṭah 35b), though the Law was written on the altar (Deut. xxvi.

in the seventy languages. Hence, while Israel is like the patient ass, the Gentiles resemble the easy-going, selfish dog (Lev. R. xiii.; Sifre, Deut., Wezot ha-Berakah, 343). Yet Simon speaks of the friendly reception given to Gentiles (Sifre, Deut. 1). The idols were called "elilim" to indicate that "wo [ ] is them that worship them" (Jellinek, l.c. v. 78). Simon b. Yoḥai insists upon the destruction of idols, but in a different manner from that proposed by others ('Ab. Zarah iii. 3; 'Ab. Zarah 43b). He extends to Gentiles the prohibition against sorcery in Deut. xviii. 10 et seq. (Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, viii. 6; Sanh. 55b).

Judah ben 'Illai recommends the daily recital of the benediction. "Blessed be Thou . . . who hast not made me a goi" (Tosef., Ber. vii. 18: Men. 43b, sometimes ascribed to Meïr; see Weiss, "Dor," ii. 137). Judah is confident that the heathen (Gentiles) will ultimately come to shame (Isa. lxvi. 5; B. M. 33b).The Gentiles took copies of the Torah, and yet did not accept it (Soṭah 35b).

Forum rules

Epistemology and Biblical Evidence Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!