Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

Interbane · Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:24 am


	Quote: What would you accept as evidence? Oh yeach, your canned post about Evidence being anything ..... major dodge.

Calling the definition I provide a dodge is actually the dodge. You blame me for dodging, when I use the most general widely accepted definition for evidence I could find. The problem is NOT my definition(which millions of people agree on), the problem is that you don't have any good evidence. It doesn't click for you, does it? You're blind to the most well understood difficulties in supporting religion; the reason religion is synonymous with 'faith', and yet you blame me. That's called delusion.

Frank 013 · Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:48 am


	Quote: Stahrwe Resorting to 'prove they ever existed in the first place' is nonsensical and a diversionary tactic. Tell me what evidence you would accept as proof.

How about a pillar of salt in the shape of lot’s wife. Do you have that?

Here is an easy one… one required by all credible historians… A record of these events from several other independent sources… and not biblical hand-me-downs written from the same fictional account. I would need credible writings that are not anonymous, written by someone, anyone else.

Some other survivors or witnesses perhaps, how about local historians that recorded the destruction of an entire city in the manner described in the text?

Oh wait… all the witnesses would have been turned into pillars of salt!!! How about a multitude of salt statues then?

People were always coming and going from cities… there should have been hundreds of salt pillars stretched along the road halted in mid stride. Why was this not recorded by anyone that came along later?

However you missed the entire point… I do not care if Lot’s wife was left behind in the story or not, my care factor is ZERO.

The story means absolutely nothing to me except that from what I remember “pillar of salt” is the accepted translation of the text (despite you attempt to confuse the matter), the transformation was apparently instantly obvious to all witnesses (not possible if it were a mental transformation), and unless you can show that Lot carried his wife around with him in the form of a pillar of salt I will assume the standard interpretation as true within the parameters of that particular fictional story.

And because the story is fictional (unless shown otherwise) it cannot be used as evidence for anything, except possibly to show the fear and ignorance that our ancestors suffered from.

Later

stahrwe · Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:48 am

Frank 013 wrote:


	Quote: Stahrwe Resorting to 'prove they ever existed in the first place' is nonsensical and a diversionary tactic. Tell me what evidence you would accept as proof.

How about a pillar of salt in the shape of lot’s wife. Do you have that?

Here is an easy one… one required by all credible historians… A record of these events from several other independent sources… and not biblical hand-me-downs written from the same fictional account. I would need credible writings that are not anonymous, written by someone, anyone else.

THis is a fabrication and not a legitimate requirement. The Gospels were written as records of the events and the truthfulness and acceptance of them is even enshrined in the expression, "It's the Gospel truth."

In fact, there is a continuous dialogue and written record from the formation of the church to today. The 'absence' of 'evidence' is due to a perversion of the system designed to exclude anything that presents Christianity as true and factual. What is surprising about evidence in written form from the first century is the lack of evidence it is that there is any preserved at all.


	Frank013 wrote: Some other survivors or witnesses perhaps, how about local historians that recorded the destruction of an entire city in the manner described in the text?

It was recorded. The local historians were all killed.


	Frank013 wrote: Oh wait… all the witnesses would have been turned into pillars of salt!!! How about a multitude of salt statues then?


	Quote: In 19:26, we come across an intriguing verse: “But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.” The Hebrew verb translated “looked back” signifies an intense gaze, not a passing glance (cf. 19:17).31 Furthermore, in Luke 17:28-32, Jesus implies that Lot’s wife returned to Sodom: “It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. ‘Remember Lot’s wife.’”32 She lost her life because of her reluctance to let go of her household stuff. She was a wife after Lot’s own heart. Her sorrow over her goods so fixated her that she could not or would not move. Perhaps she decided that she would be better dead than separated from her possessions.33 Ethan Allen furnishings and Nordstrom’s attire consumed her. Ladies, is this a struggle for any of you? If it is, remember that all that Lot and his wife had gained by living in Sodom burned up like wood, hay, and stubble (cf. 1 Cor 3:10-15). By the way, Mrs. Lot’s family never saw it happen. They had obeyed the warning about not looking behind them. Not until later did they realize what had occurred. There’s a definite lesson here about running from wrong: Even if others are disobedient, you must be obedient!34 31 Heb. nabat = “To regard with pleasure or affection.” 32 John H. Walton, Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 480. 33 Hughes, Genesis, 275. 34 Swindoll, Abraham. 84. http://bible.org/seriespage/sin-and-city-genesis-191-38


	Frank013 wrote: People were always coming and going from cities… there should have been hundreds of salt pillars stretched along the road halted in mid stride. Why was this not recorded by anyone that came along later? However you missed the entire point… I do not care if Lot’s wife was left behind in the story or not, my care factor is ZERO. The story means absolutely nothing to me except that from what I remember “pillar of salt” is the accepted translation of the text (despite you attempt to confuse the matter), the transformation was apparently instantly obvious to all witnesses (not possible if it were a mental transformation), and unless you can show that Lot carried his wife around with him in the form of a pillar of salt I will assume the standard interpretation as true within the parameters of that particular fictional story. And because the story is fictional (unless shown otherwise) it cannot be used as evidence for anything, except possibly to show the fear and ignorance that our ancestors suffered from. Later

Would you please defend your statement that her transformation was obvious and instantaneous is a valid reading of the story?

Frank 013 · Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:29 pm


	Quote: Stahrwe This is a fabrication and not a legitimate requirement. The Gospels were written as records of the events and the truthfulness and acceptance of them is even enshrined in the expression, "It's the Gospel truth."

It is a legitimate requirement, it is a standard requirement in historical study… but it is detrimental to your claims so I understand your reluctance to accept it.

Also you are doing exactly what I described before… again… apparently you are incapable of learning…

You are pointing at the label of the magic jar and trying to make us believe that it is magic because it is labeled as such… even though there is absolutely no other evidence to show that as true.

You seem to be unable to accept the fact that the words "It's the Gospel truth." Mean nothing unless they can be independently verified and the gospels hold merit when scrutinized historically… put plainly they don’t.


	Quote: Stahrwe The 'absence' of 'evidence' is due to a perversion of the system designed to exclude anything that presents Christianity as true and factual. What is surprising about evidence in written form from the first century is the lack of evidence it is that there is any preserved at all.

Of course… the vast conspiracy somehow all of those private works were uncovered and destroyed and somehow the biblical account remained untouched… now we are truly are in the realm of absurdity.


	Quote: Stahrwe It was recorded. The local historians were all killed.

So all of the historians within traveling distance of the destroyed city were killed? How? Why? What evidence do you have to back up that claim?

So you are saying that no one came along a few days/weeks/months later and said or recorded what they found?

Do you have any idea how unrealistic this is? A story like this would have been told far and wide… it should have spread from Egypt to France in weeks flat… yet all contemporary records remain silent of the event.

The ice here is very thin…


	Quote: Stahrwe Would you please defend your statement that her transformation was obvious and instantaneous is a valid reading of the story?

Nope… it’s pointless to do so. You need to provide evidence that the story is something other than a badly written fairy tale before it becomes relevant. Which you cannot do… not only because there is no existing evidence to support the story, but because your standards of evidence are so weak you are incapable of seeing that you are posting the “magic jar” label over and over.

Later

Interbane · Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:39 pm

Stahrwe:


	Quote: How am I making a Bare Assertion Fallacy?

"The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true."

Stahrwe:


	Quote: The Gospels were written as records of the events and the truthfulness and acceptance of them is even enshrined in the expression, "It's the Gospel truth."

stahrwe · Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:39 pm

Interbane wrote:

Stahrwe:


	Quote: How am I making a Bare Assertion Fallacy?

"The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true."

Stahrwe:


	Quote: The Gospels were written as records of the events and the truthfulness and acceptance of them is even enshrined in the expression, "It's the Gospel truth."

You provided a definition of a Bare Assertion Fallacy. You failed to show how I was committing one or why any sworn testimony is not subject to the same objection.

The burden under the FRE remains yours to disprove the verses submitted thus far.
I gave you one which should be easy. The first one with Peter. All you have to do is prove that miracles don't happen.

Interbane · Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:55 pm


	Quote: All you have to do is prove that miracles don't happen.


	Quote: The burden under the FRE remains yours to disprove the verses submitted thus far

"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).... In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

You owe me between 30 and 40 fingers by the way. Why do you find it acceptable to commit the same fallacy repeatedly? Is your faith in Greenleaf stronger than your adherence to logic?

Frank 013 · Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:57 pm


	Quote: Stahrwe You provided a definition of a Bare Assertion Fallacy. You failed to show how I was committing one.

Your joking right?

Please tell me you’re kidding and not really a moronic retard!!!

Please!!! :cry:

johnson1010 · Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:20 pm


	Quote: Interbane wrote: Stahrwe: Quote: How am I making a Bare Assertion Fallacy? "The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true." Stahrwe: Quote: The Gospels were written as records of the events and the truthfulness and acceptance of them is even enshrined in the expression, "It's the Gospel truth."

it does not get more strait forward than this.

You statement about the gospels reads as though it were in the definition of bare assertion fallacy.

stahrwe · Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:37 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: All you have to do is prove that miracles don't happen.


	Quote: The burden under the FRE remains yours to disprove the verses submitted thus far

"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).... In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

You owe me between 30 and 40 fingers by the way. Why do you find it acceptable to commit the same fallacy repeatedly? Is your faith in Greenleaf stronger than your adherence to logic?

I am not referring to Greenleaf for my argument though I suspect you are using guidelines for responding to him for your reponses. So far all you have provided are definitions and an entrenched position that the Bible must be rejected. You have not provided any argument or response to my challenges regarding sworn testimony from a biased witness because you know there is no precedent for rejecting said testimony until and unless it can be impeached! That is a fundament principle of justice and has been for centuries. Your railing against me carries no weight because that is all it is, it totally ignores the substance of the argument but we can continue this:

On what basis is the testimony of a sworn witness, though biased, rendered inadmissable?

There is only one answer, it must be shown to be false, in other words, the testimony must be impeached or considered, there is no other choice.

Frank 013 · Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:57 pm


	Quote: Stahrwe There is only one answer, it must be shown to be false, in other words, the testimony must be impeached or considered, there is no other choice.

Holy… Crap!!!

Stahrwe, not only are you unable to show your “evidence” as relevant, you are also unable to see the logic fallacy that keeps it from being admissible or even accept the legitimate reasons that biased material is inadmissible. The bible fails under all of these… Furthermore it has been shown over and over again to be FALSE and not just by us, but by hoards of historians, including a great many biblical historians.

Finally, it has been considered, it has amply been shown to be logically inplausable and false... but you simply ignore that.

I’m done… this is just beyond stupid… you cannot proceed with someone incapable of understanding the rules… I suppose that is why only Stahrwe supports his view... it is stupid at its core.

Later

Frank 013 · Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:14 pm


	Quote: Stahrwe On what basis is the testimony of a sworn witness, though biased, rendered inadmissible?

First of all who is the sworn witness? Authors of the gospels? We do not even know who they were, when they lived or anything about them… so there is no way to determine credibility or motive. Their fantasy stories are at best unconfirmed by other historical records at worst they are shown to be vastly inaccurate.

However there is president to dismiss a witness because of bias… if they are inept or delusional, protecting a previous lie… or if their bias is so strong you can expect them to lie… married couples, family members and people who have admitted that they would do anything to protect someone/something. Under these circumstances their testimony can be rendered inadmissible.

However there are no witnesses present so once again this is an exercise in stupidness…

Later

Interbane · Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:33 pm


	Quote: I am not referring to Greenleaf for my argument though I suspect you are using guidelines for responding to him for your reponses.

Part of being a freethinker is thinking for yourself. I'm not aware of any guidelines for responding to apologists. Apologists are the ones who use guidelines. The only thing I'm using, that I've used this entire time, is plain old logic.


	Quote: On what basis is the testimony of a sworn witness, though biased, rendered inadmissable? There is only one answer, it must be shown to be false, in other words, the testimony must be impeached or considered, there is no other choice.

First, as Frank said, who is your sworn witness? Second, what makes you think a witness wouldn't lie.

The third item is lengthier. I've already explained it, but your neurons are frozen it seems. Let's say we have a story from Akmud about a trip to town from a thousand years ago. His story would go something like this:

"I went to town today. On the way I saw a band of soldiers chopping down a ton of trees. They intend to build an outpost or some such thing there. When I got to town, I noticed the strangest thing. A man was chanting in the town square angrily, and a person next to him in shackles floated up into the air then dissappeared into thin air."

Now, this entire narrative cannot be accepted on account of the testimony of Akmud. It may very well be that we could search the records and find that soldiers did indeed create an outpost around that time and location. However, that evidence which corroborates Akmud's story only corroborates one part of it. The part about a man floating and disappearing is a claim of a different nature. It goes against conventional wisdom.

The lesson here is that a narrative is not a single claim. It is a collection of claims. Some of the events may be corroborated, but some may not. We know that soldiers building outposts would be a relatively inconsequential claim. Meaning, there is no consequence that affects our understanding of the world. The other part, about the man floating, would require us to accept an extraordinary consequence. We would need to consider the claim that something happened which went against the laws of physics. I'm not saying such things don't happen(even though my opinion is that they don't happen). What I'm saying is, since the claim is more extraordinary, it simply requires more evidence.


	Quote: There is only one answer, it must be shown to be false, in other words, the testimony must be impeached or considered, there is no other choice.

It has been considered. There are parts of the testimony that, after we've considered them, realize they are extraordinary claims, so the onus is back on you to supply more evidence for those claims.

I believe the bible contains partial truth. There are some claims which I wouldn't ask for additional evidence to support. I think most everyone would agree here. The problem is the collection of extraordinary claims. The 'testimony' itself doesn't even come close to fulfilling the burden of proof.

Consider this. A witness is sworn in, and gives a narrative of some series of events. Then, towards the end, he claims that his neighbor threw a sewing needle over the fence from his backyard, it traveled through an upstairs window, through the bedroom, into the den, and pierced an eye of his pet Macaw, and killed it by lodging into its brain. The jury wouldn't necessarily dismiss the entire testimony. However, they would require further evidence and investigation into the outrageous claim at the end. The onus is back on the person making the claim, based on the fact that it's extraordinary. Could such a thing happen? Yes, of course. But it requires additional evidence if we are to believe it. Otherwise, we can dismiss the claim as being fabricated, since we know men fabricate stories.

Azrael · Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:55 pm

Interbane he may not understand the word Free Thinker as he is responding to the imaginary God in his head telling him what to say.

johnson1010 · Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:02 pm

Quote:

Interbane wrote:
Stahrwe:


	Quote: Quote: How am I making a Bare Assertion Fallacy?

"The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true."


	Quote: Stahrwe: Quote: The Gospels were written as records of the events and the truthfulness and acceptance of them is even enshrined in the expression, "It's the Gospel truth."


	Quote: You provided a definition of a Bare Assertion Fallacy. You failed to show how I was committing one or why any sworn testimony is not subject to the same objection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

Forum rules

Epistemology and Biblical Evidence Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!