Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

[stahrwe]

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.

Now I know that you are channeling Tat. Once again, you provided the definition which I am using. I gave you multiple opportunities to ammend or change the defnition. If I presumed that Genesis 1 was true but I didn't exist then I would provide evidence that Genesis 1 was false, or would I?

I have not violated the conditions of your definition if you choose to maintain that I am wrong due to the papratizzie principle then you need to retract your definition and we return to the original question, what would you accept as evidence?

[stahrwe]

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.

For the moment, nicely constructed argument. Kudos

[Interbane]

I have not violated the conditions of your definition if you choose to maintain that I am wrong due to the papratizzie principle then you need to retract your definition and we return to the original question, what would you accept as evidence?

(Let me rephrase)

I accepted your evidence. Here: EVIDENCE ACCEPTED.

Submission of evidence is over, you met the criteria. Congratulations.

Now we move on to the analysis. During the analysis, we see that your evidence cannot support Claim #1, since it commits a fallacy. Johnson's post is a good one on how your 'evidence' doesn't pass analysis.

By the way, you lose another finger for setting up a straw man argument. The straw man being that "my" definition not only defines what evidence is, but also gives us criteria by which to verify or falsify it.


Tell me, do you really think "my definition"(which it isn't, I'm merely the messenger for Wikipedia) was not only the definition for "evidence", but was also the criteria by which it can be examined not only in philosophy, but the court of law and even science? Did you not realize it was only the first paragraph? Did you not realize there is a lot more literature concerning epistemology?

There really needs to be a straw man emote.

So, do you have any other evidence to submit so we may examine it? Submit anything that meets 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."

(Do I really need to make the disclaimer that even though you may submit it, it could turn out to be fallacious or false?)

Let me ask you another question, this is fun. Do you really think "I assume [proposition x] to be true." is enough to make something true? Do you really think "I assume [person x] to be guilty." is sufficient evidence to send someone to prison? Did you think it was a problem with "my" definition? Or did you think "my" definition included "all" literature concerning the submission and analysis of evidence? This is becoming redundant, I know. But I'm wondering how many different ways I need to word it for you to understand it.

[Robert Tulip]

Interbane, can I request that you as a moderator move the Genesis posts from this thread into a new topic, as they are not relevant to this thread on the miracles of Jesus. If Stahrwe wants to spam up the board with troll rubbish then he should confine these efforts to threads where his comments are relevant.

[Interbane]

I'm the one guilty of pressing the tangent, sorry Robert. I wonder, what will it look like when 'thread drift' is taken care of on the software side? Rather than threads, there will be webs, with posts going sideways when certain keywords are used, linking up to similar posts[swooooof* cla-chink!] in other threads and such. Well. That in itself is a tangent!

I'll do this tomorrow(friday) Robert. Evidence, rather than Genesis, is the conceptual anchor I think.

[stahrwe]

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.

What's funny about this is that Mary is the first skeptic. You are offering the same objection which she did, but, she got her answer. The Holy Spirit is going to handle the process. How did that work? I don't know but there is the explanation, and, oh, by the way, as evidence (pay attention Interbane) Gabriel tells Mary that Elizabeth is also expecting. For 5 debate points can any of you tell me the name we know Elizabeth's chld by?

Luke 1:
26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,
27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.
31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God.
36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.
37 For nothing is impossible with God."
38 "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

Any of you ever read the introduction to the book of Luke?

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke made claims about his careful examination of the evidence available to him to check the story. His sources included both eyewitnesses and written accounts.

[stahrwe]

I'm the one guilty of pressing the tangent, sorry Robert. I wonder, what will it look like when 'thread drift' is taken care of on the software side? Rather than threads, there will be webs, with posts going sideways when certain keywords are used, linking up to similar posts[swooooof* cla-chink!] in other threads and such. Well. That in itself is a tangent!

I'll do this tomorrow(friday) Robert. Evidence, rather than Genesis, is the conceptual anchor I think.

I object. I have asked repeatedly to move the Genesis discussion to Genesis without even so much as a nod in response. Robert gets frustrated and gets instant action. As far as the actual agent of creation YEC'ers believe that it was that aspect of the Godhead which was incarnate as Jesus. On that basis, what BIGGER miracle has there been than creation itself. Now I think the discussion should remain here rather than be marginalized in Genesis as Robert is intending; unless of-course the participants, including Robert will agree to continue the discussion in Genesis and not just ignore it. I may only have eight fingers yet, but I am on to a trick when I see one.

[stahrwe]

I have not violated the conditions of your definition if you choose to maintain that I am wrong due to the papratizzie principle then you need to retract your definition and we return to the original question, what would you accept as evidence?

(Let me rephrase)

I accepted your evidence. Here: EVIDENCE ACCEPTED.

Submission of evidence is over, you met the criteria. Congratulations.

Now we move on to the analysis. During the analysis, we see that your evidence cannot support Claim #1, since it commits a fallacy. Johnson's post is a good one on how your 'evidence' doesn't pass analysis.

By the way, you lose another finger for setting up a straw man argument. The straw man being that "my" definition not only defines what evidence is, but also gives us criteria by which to verify or falsify it.

Provided I have one finger left I will be able to adequately respond to you.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Tell me, do you really think "my definition"(which it isn't, I'm merely the messenger for Wikipedia) was not only the definition for "evidence", but was also the criteria by which it can be examined not only in philosophy, but the court of law and even science? Did you not realize it was only the first paragraph? Did you not realize there is a lot more literature concerning epistemology?

I asked repeatedly for your definition of evidence. Even after you posted the Wikipedia definition, I asked you for YOUR, Interbane's definition. You responded with the Wikipedia definition again even though it is obvously flawed.

There really needs to be a straw man emote.

You notice that I don't use them. I find them indicative of a person who has difficulty expressing themselves.

So, do you have any other evidence to submit so we may examine it? Submit anything that meets 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."

(Do I really need to make the disclaimer that even though you may submit it, it could turn out to be fallacious or false?)

Let me ask you another question, this is fun. Do you really think "I assume [proposition x] to be true." is enough to make something true? Do you really think "I assume [person x] to be guilty." is sufficient evidence to send someone to prison? Did you think it was a problem with "my" definition? Or did you think "my" definition included "all" literature concerning the submission and analysis of evidence? This is becoming redundant, I know. But I'm wondering how many different ways I need to word it for you to understand it.

I am in a similar situation. You provided the definition which included the words, "...(a) presumed to be true..." did you not? Now you are telling that I when I following the contraint which you imposed I am in error?

I will deal with Johnson1010 in good time.

Reitteg Counterexample

[Interbane]

What my definition is doesn't matter. I will accept and assimilate what most people agree upon, because that's how language works. The definition wikipedia gives is an excellent starting point. I'll go with any other definition as well, it doesn't really matter. I'll post fifteen thousand definitions here if it helps. There are hundreds of online dictionaries. The only thing that mattered was that you at least submitted evidence. Which you did, and you did it according to the definition I provided. Thank you.

Now, how hard is it to understand that once you provide evidence, it still needs to be analyzed? Do you think that ALL evidence is good, flawless evidence as long as it can be defined as evidence? Unsupportive evidence or false evidence or bad evidence are still defined as evidence.

Now you are telling that I when I following the contraint which you imposed I am in error?

Go read a damn book on epistemology. You're obviously ignorant of it. Your 'evidence' fit the definition, but it turned out to be flawed. A presumption can most certainly be evidence. For example, anecdotal witness testimony(although it won't be outright dismissed, it will be 'weak' evidence). A fired shell from a .45 can be evidence as well. That doesn't in and of itself convict someone of a crime. The evidence must be analyzed after it's submitted.

How can you not be understanding this? I'm being perfectly honest. Explaining your errors to you is like teaching a baby hippo to think. I'm sorry for the insults, but I truly can't understand how you're not getting this stuff.

I object. I have asked repeatedly to move the Genesis discussion to Genesis without even so much as a nod in response. Robert gets frustrated and gets instant action.

I don't mean to ignore such requests, I'm sorry. Let me know if you want me to move them as a moderator, rather than requesting people to post elsewhere. Our discussion about evidence is indeed not in line with the subject of this thread.

[stahrwe]

What my definition is doesn't matter. I will accept and assimilate what most people agree upon, because that's how language works. The definition wikipedia gives is an excellent starting point. I'll go with any other definition as well, it doesn't really matter. I'll post fifteen thousand definitions here if it helps. There are hundreds of online dictionaries. The only thing that mattered was that you at least submitted evidence. Which you did, and you did it according to the definition I provided. Thank you.

Now, how hard is it to understand that once you provide evidence, it still needs to be analyzed? Do you think that ALL evidence is good, flawless evidence as long as it can be defined as evidence? Unsupportive evidence or false evidence or bad evidence are still defined as evidence.

Now you are telling that I when I following the contraint which you imposed I am in error?

Go read a damn book on epistemology. You're obviously ignorant of it. Your 'evidence' fit the definition, but it turned out to be flawed. A presumption can most certainly be evidence. For example, anecdotal witness testimony(although it won't be outright dismissed, it will be 'weak' evidence). A fired shell from a .45 can be evidence as well. That doesn't in and of itself convict someone of a crime. The evidence must be analyzed after it's submitted.

How can you not be understanding this? I'm being perfectly honest. Explaining your errors to you is like teaching a baby hippo to think. I'm sorry for the insults, but I truly can't understand how you're not getting this stuff.

I object. I have asked repeatedly to move the Genesis discussion to Genesis without even so much as a nod in response. Robert gets frustrated and gets instant action.

I don't mean to ignore such requests, I'm sorry. Let me know if you want me to move them as a moderator, rather than requesting people to post elsewhere. Our discussion about evidence is indeed not in line with the subject of this thread.

I don't know about that. It is reasonable to ask for evidence insupport of miracles and part of the discussion is related to the evidence.

Let's return to your issue. You want evidence that claims in Genesis 1 are true. What I have been getting at is do you expect me to walk out into a field somewhere and dig up a something and shout eureka. I submit that I can build a case but it requires that the 'evidence' be considered objectively and not be prejudged.