Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

[stahrwe]

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.

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?

You type a lot of words but you don't say anything. I am asking, what you, whoever Interbane actually is, would accept as proof that God exists? It isn't a complicated question so knock off all the punditry and pontificating and just tell me. I'll bet you can't come up with an answer, a serious answer that is to my question. How about some of you others?

[johnson1010]

I thought that was a pretty good answer.

If you walked up to me with a guy and said, "This is the god of the bible."

I would say, "Prove it."

If he then held up his hand and created a cow out of thin air, lifted it into the sky with telekinesis, made the cow recite shakespear, then flew us both to the moon, riding the cow on a bridge of pure rainbow i would definitely be inclined to believe he was god.

It is not that i want to believe there is no god. There is absolutely no good proof that there is one.

I would come back from the moon and say, "I was dead wrong. That guy right over there really does seem to be god."

Interbane would say, "I didn't see any of that happen. I really don't think that guy IS god."

Then i would say, "God, take him on the rain-bow cow-trip to the moon."

and god would do that. God could do anything we asked to validate his existence, if he were real, beause he is God.

If God actually gave a crap about people believing in him, we would believe in him. Simple as that. Because God makes what he wants to happen, happen.

[Interbane]

Whatever fits this criteria is what I'd accept as evidence:

"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."

Now, what is your evidence for Claim #1? Or will you equivocate and evade the question a few more posts? Go by the above criteria, even if you think your evidence doesn't quite pass muster.

If you truly want to discuss your question about 'what I'd accept as proof of god', then create a new post. Here, it's nothing but an attempt to evade my question.

[stahrwe]

Whatever fits this criteria is what I'd accept as evidence:

"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."

Now, what is your evidence for Claim #1? Or will you equivocate and evade the question a few more posts? Go by the above criteria, even if you think your evidence doesn't quite pass muster.

If you truly want to discuss your question about 'what I'd accept as proof of god', then create a new post. Here, it's nothing but an attempt to evade my question.

Every Wednesday I take my 3 1/2 year old granddaughter to McDonlds, the source of all nutrition for Americans. I get her a cheeseburger happy meal, ketchup only, apple dippers (to be healthy), and chocolate milk. Last week I got her the usual and she objected to the sandwich because it had ketchup on it. "But you like ketchup" I said.
"No I don't papa."
"Since when."
"I've never liked it papa."

Now I had seen her for the last year weekly take and smear extra ketchup on her cheeseburger, dip my fries in ketchup and eat them, dip her apple slices in ketchup and eat them, and suck ketchup out of the little cups I put it in. Yet here she was asserting that she hates it. I asked my daughter about it and she said that Lily just stopped eating it.

Now, how could I prove to you, Interbane that what I said above is true? How can I prove to Lily that I know she liked ketchup until recently?

Suppose I told you that I went through the drive through every week and got a cheesburger which I then ate. How could I prove that?

When I was six, I returned from a fishing trip ahead of my brothers. There was a snake on the path so I started whacking at it with the fishing pole. The snake struck and got hooked. I caught a snake. I freaked and started whacking the snake on the ground. It got free and took off just before my brothers arrived. I told them the story and they didn't believe me. How could I prove it actually happened? How can you prove something in the past happened?

I submit that it is not me who is equivocating, but you. You can not tell me what evidence you would accept.

[Interbane]

You can not tell me what evidence you would accept.

ANYTHING THAT FITS THIS CRITERIA:

Wikipedia:
"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."

I cannot POSSIBLY be any clearer. What is wrong with you?

[stahrwe]

You can not tell me what evidence you would accept.

ANYTHING THAT FITS THIS CRITERIA:

Wikipedia:
"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."

I cannot POSSIBLY be any clearer. What is wrong with you?

First of all, this definition is flawed. It should read: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes ANYTHING 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."

Based on the above definition I assume that Genesis is true and present it as evidence.

[Interbane]

Based on the above definition I assume that Genesis is true and present it as evidence.

Thank you, was it really that hard? You assume Genesis is true(meaning, you have faith that it is true). That is a procurement of evidence, excellent work. What is that evidence OF? In thinking you're smart, you'll say no, I have seven fingers and two thumbs. Or eight and one. I believe it is evidence OF the tendency of men long ago to create fiction stories based on movements of the stars. That is a different thread, I understand it's a back and forth between you and Robert.

Now, if you want to upgrade your "assumption" that Genesis is true, you would need to find evidence that supports it. The answer I'm looking for here is the one that theologians around the world agree upon; there isn't any evidence, so an assumption is all you have.

Petitio Principii:
"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."

What petitio principii means is that if you hope to use Genesis to support itself, you are committing a fallacy. This is circular reasoning.

So I'll ask again, what evidence do you have for Claim #1?

I hope it's starting to dawn on you what is going on here. It's not ME who is guilty of having too high of standards. I'm using the definitions that millions agree upon. The problem(read closely) is that you have no evidence. Truly. Find me some other evidence which supports Claim #1, without committing a logical fallacy. You have 9 fingers left.

[stahrwe]

Based on the above definition I assume that Genesis is true and present it as evidence.

Thank you, was it really that hard? You assume Genesis is true(meaning, you have faith that it is true). That is a procurement of evidence, excellent work. What is that evidence OF? In thinking you're smart, you'll say no, I have seven fingers and two thumbs. Or eight and one. I believe it is evidence OF the tendency of men long ago to create fiction stories based on movements of the stars. That is a different thread, I understand it's a back and forth between you and Robert.

Now, if you want to upgrade your "assumption" that Genesis is true, you would need to find evidence that supports it. The answer I'm looking for here is the one that theologians around the world agree upon; there isn't any evidence, so an assumption is all you have.

Petitio Principii:
"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."

What petitio principii means is that if you hope to use Genesis to support itself, you are committing a fallacy. This is circular reasoning.

So I'll ask again, what evidence do you have for Claim #1?

I hope it's starting to dawn on you what is going on here. It's not ME who is guilty of having too high of standards. I'm using the definitions that millions agree upon. The problem(read closely) is that you have no evidence. Truly. Find me some other evidence which supports Claim #1, without committing a logical fallacy. You have 9 fingers left.

You aren't channeling Tat are you?
You provided the definition

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."

You, Interbane provided this definition. From this definition I select the first process (a) and Presume that Genesis is true, and therefore, the fact that I am here is evidence to support that.

Reitteg Counterexample.

[Interbane]

You, Interbane provided this definition. From this definition I select the first process (a) and Presume that Genesis is true, and therefore, the fact that I am here is evidence to support that.

You submit that Genesis is true, as evidence that Claim 1 is true. This is invalid, since it commits the fallacy of petitio principii.

That's another finger for committing the same fallacy. Down to eight!


I assume that you are wrong. That is evidence that you are wrong. HA! Sure, an assumption can be provided as evidence, but it must also be supported by prior evidence. It also must be free from logical fallacies(duh!).

There are many solutions to avoid infinite regress, and I'm willing to agree on one of them. But right now we're still up in the clouds.

[johnson1010]

You are using unfounded belief, Star.

You have it in your head that the story is true, and you are using the STORY IN QUESTION as proof of itself. This doesn't seem fishy to you?

In regards to your fishing story, which we talked about previously, and trusting that you really ate burgers:

Nothing about your story is crazy, or out of the ordinary. If you claimed to eat at McDonalds every day of the week, i would not challenge that. You might well be lying, but that would not make me a fool for believing you. If pressed, "Do you believe with 100 percent certainty that Star really eats McDonalds every day?" I would not assert that it was 100 percent true, but i would not say that it was outside the realm of possibility either.

I do not claim with 100 percent certainty that your story about the snake and fishing rod is true, but neither do i dismiss it as impossible.

The reason these stories are acceptable, with varying levels of probability, is that we know that McDonald's restaurants do exist throughout the entire world. Millions of people do eat there, and many go several times a week. I know from experience that people go to McDonalds. I know what a cheeseburger is, and i know that it is regularly consumed by people. Everything about thsi situation is completely within the realm of experience and probability.

The snake story is entirely possible as well. Fishing rods have hooks on them. If a snake did happen to be hooked by a rod, it would be snared. A young boy might be freaked out by this. The snake could get off the hook, and the other children might not believe the story.

All these things are possible, but perhaps we have just not heard them put in this order before. It is no wild stretch of imagination, nor does it require the suspension of physics for anything in this story to take place. If i were to rate it, having no reason to assume you would make this story up, i give it an 80 percent chance of being true.

In my mind, as believeable as any story someone might tell about something interesting that happened. There may be facts that are different, because of hazy memory, subjective perspective, or that mythical narrative people sometimes give a story to jazz it up, but basically a true story.

Now, you tell me that you hooked the snake and it yelled at you "HEY! I'm slithering here!"

That immediately drops down to 0 percent believable. I know that snakes are incapable of speaking english, so that throws this story right out the window.

The same goes for virgin birth, feeding multitudes from a small portions, walking on water in the literal sense, ressurection of a 3 day old corpse, and the efficacy of prayer.

It is not that only a small percentage of people have virgin births... nobody does. No human has a virgin birth. Ever. There must be an egg and a sperm cell. Humans do not reproduce asexually. That story is complete nonsense.

It only works because of the god exception. No true-believing christian father would accept that story if his daughter showed up pregnant. They would ignore it out of hand and set to work looking for the little son of a bitch who knocked up their daughter.