Essentially your argument is the creation of doubt through the suggestion of 'possibilities.' These possibilities lack any evidential support however.
I haven't created doubt in myself. It's been there for quite a while, nothing has changed. I've seen all those possibilities for quite a while as well. Is this your first time considering them? They don't go away if you ignore them.
I consider all the stories men have believed of myth and legend. All the gods that men have dreamed up. All the rare creatures, flood stories, rebirth stories, etc. I love the example of L. Ron Hubbard, I'm not sure how he pulled off creating a religion in modern times. You'd hope humanity would have become wiser over time.
My point in mentioning that isn't the veracity of all the millions of fantastical claims there are. My point is that someone had to believe it first to spread the story. Or if they didn't believe it, they were a very good liar and never fessed up. In all those fantastical claims, one of the many possibilities is that they are true. But without some evidence, we have no way to filter out the false possibilities.
Is the track record of man's tendency to bear false witness an acceptable piece of evidence for the possibilities I mention? Perhaps, perhaps not. You decide. What's more important is the evidence you have that
your possibility is the true one. I have no problem remaining agnostic on the issue, or changing my mind if you give me some solid stuff.
You noted your reliance upon formal logic earlier. What formal logical chain leads you to suggest that the disciples fabricated the story? Please refer to this website to make sure you don't include any logical fallacies:
My remark was a bit different than it came across. What I meant was, if I do rely on formal logic, the reason is simply that it works so well. If you remember, I went on to mention my taste for informal logic. Even redneck reasoning is okay, which is what I thought I used last post and am using this post. I assumed you didn't want to see formal logic, I apologize.
Premise: It is common for men to write false explanations and testimonies with the intent of others believing them.
Premise: The testimonies in the bible were written with the intent of others believing them.
Conclusion: It is possible the writings attributed to the authors of the bible are, in part, false.
I can sit comfortably in the agnostic position here Doulos. I'm not trying to prove that my possibility is more likely than yours. I'm sure I could make a very strong case, and Robert Tulip could do even better. I was only questioning your claim to certainty with regards to the "truthfulness of events". I want to see how you justify that certainty.
Why on earth would courts use such a method when it can lead to possible error in judgement? Why not rely upon formal logic? You said yourself that logic, "...is so reliable in achieving truthful results." Were the framers of our court systems complete and utter idiots?
...or did they merely realize that formal logic cannot always answer questions like those which appear in courts?
The courts do use logic, extensively. If a jury made an error per my previous post, then why would you be sarcastic towards logic? If they had recognized the contradiction, their error would have been prevented. That is a pro for logic, not a con.
I'm sure there are many more logical rules and fallacies that are as reliable as the rest that we haven't yet discovered. The ones we do have don't apply to all reasoning, but when they do apply, we'd be foolish not to use them.
If you feel browbeaten by our extensive use of logic, then I apologize. I truly don't use it all that often. Only when it applies. I explained my argument in detail in this post and the previous post without using formal logic. Isn't that what you're looking for? I won't use formal logic anymore, if that suits you. If you commit a fallacy, I'll use the reasoning behind the fallacy(they weren't accepted worldwide on a whim!) as my explanation. Or would you prefer I not use reasoning at all? I want to know what you're suggesting.
If there was benefit for the disciples, we might postulate reasons for fabrication.
We might also postulate reasons they weren't fabricated. Thousands of reasons I'm sure. There are thousands of reasons why they could have been fabricated. Robert Tulip could recommend some good reading. Michel Onfray wrote a very entertaining book on the possible motives of Saul of Tarsus. I'm sure if you dig, you'll find a truckload of books that outline the possibilities from every angle.
Hypothesizing doesn't do it for me Doulos, from either side of the debate. How do you
know the stories aren't fabricated, at least in part? The reverse is true as well. If anyone reading these posts claims to know the stories
are fabricated, I'd ask how.
Might you be using weak reasoning here?
No, every sentence in the quoted paragraph was a question. I was using weak questioning. Why didn't you answer my weak questions? Well, the last sentence could be weak reasoning, but by that circular admission alone it would be good reasoning, wouldn't it?
Even the suggestion that the disciples fabricated the story does not appear till the modern era. It isn't based upon any new evidence, but rather upon doubt that Christianity can be true.
Of course it's based on new evidence. To support that claim, I'll defer to Robert or youkrst or one of the other many MP's who frequent the site. If the disciples actually did fabricate parts of the bible, then was it fabricated from scratch? Part of the creative process is recombination of other things. If the accounts were fabricated, we could expect to see elements from similar stories from a point in time before the accounts were written.
I wonder if there is a way to steer this conversation back to Prominent Scientists and their religiosity? If you're interested in continuing the discussion, we should make a new thread.
