Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

[johnson1010]

Go ahead and look at it objectively.

The claim is made in genesis.
The claim is supported by?... Genesis, and the people who may have written about genesis, having been inspired by genesis.

So, as far as i know, there is no proof for the claims made by genesis other than the book itself. If someone believes that, in spite of the vast data collected that puts genesis' timeline way way way off the mark, then that is a personal, or subjective, position.

The age of the universe is estimated at 14.5, or so, billion years because of our observation of physical phenomena, which we can measure and be sure of on a small scale. Such phenomena as radiation dating. We can quantify that number and be sure of its authenticity on a human time scale, then project that number into the past on objects that proceed human civilization.

This would be objective evidence in favor of an old universe. Assertions from a belief are subjective, and evidence only of the belief itself.

[Robert Tulip]

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.

Creationist epistemology is a contradiction in terms. Epistemology is about knowledge through evidence. Creationism, especially YECism, is in direct and massive conflict with evidence, and is outside the frontier of rational discussion of knowledge. Saying 'Jesus made the universe' is a statement of faith that does not assist to explain the text of the New Testament, which should be examined like any document in literature to assess why the authors made the claims they did, and what was the evidentiary basis for those claims. Evidence for creationism is a separate topic from the miracles of Jesus.

[Interbane]

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.

Quite a conundrum, isn't it? I'm waiting for the moment you finally realize that you don't have any logical non-fallacious evidence. The majority of theologians understand this very well, why is it so hard for you to understand?

I submit that I can build a case but it requires that the 'evidence' be considered objectively and not be prejudged.

Of course, build a case. Good luck.

[stahrwe]

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.

Quite a conundrum, isn't it? I'm waiting for the moment you finally realize that you don't have any logical non-fallacious evidence. The majority of theologians understand this very well, why is it so hard for you to understand?

I submit that I can build a case but it requires that the 'evidence' be considered objectively and not be prejudged.

Of course, build a case. Good luck.

Are you sure?
For the record, would you please state what you want me to do?

[Interbane]

The forum captured it Columbo, press on.

[stahrwe]

Ok, as we are going to be presenting and refuting evidence we need to agree on a standard to base said on. I suggest that we follow the rules of evidence for the American Judicial system. Do you agree?

[Interbane]

I suggest that we follow the rules of evidence for the American Judicial system. Do you agree?

That is not a very good system for epistemic truths, although it serves well to arbitrate human dispute. Can you propose a better system of weighing and judging evidence? The best minds over the last 2,000 years have developed the best system mankind has ever seen. It has the fewest problems of any method we've ever seen or developed, and is constantly improving from philosophical feedback. The American Judicial system also relies on it, almost exclusively. I would propose we use that system, but you are, needless to say, prejudiced against it.

[stahrwe]

I suggest that we follow the rules of evidence for the American Judicial system. Do you agree?

That is not a very good system for epistemic truths, although it serves well to arbitrate human dispute. Can you propose a better system of weighing and judging evidence? The best minds over the last 2,000 years have developed the best system mankind has ever seen. It has the fewest problems of any method we've ever seen or developed, and is constantly improving from philosophical feedback. The American Judicial system also relies on it, almost exclusively. I would propose we use that system, but you are, needless to say, prejudiced against it.

Excuse me, I was imprecise, the term is Federal Rules of Evidence.

I presume that you are hinting at the scientific method. I would not accept that as it presupposes certain assumptions which are not applicable to all knowledge.

Are you agreeable to using the Federal Rules of Evidence and its supporting legal theories?

[Interbane]

I would not accept that as it presupposes certain assumptions which are not applicable to all knowledge.

Which assumptions does the scientific method presuppose that exclude some knowledge? You are inevitably going to commit another fallacy, or show false reasoning. Answer this question first. I see no need to use any other system when mankind has already developed the best system we've ever seen. The system is not the problem here, you are. You are prejudiced against it. And there is a very good reason for that prejudice.

Do you have a link to the Federal rules of evidence? The only way I'll agree to these rules is if logic supercedes them, in the event that an illogical condition arises that the federal rules doesn't address.

[stahrwe]

I would not accept that as it presupposes certain assumptions which are not applicable to all knowledge.

Which assumptions does the scientific method presuppose that exclude some knowledge? You are inevitably going to commit another fallacy, or show false reasoning. Answer this question first. I see no need to use any other system when mankind has already developed the best system we've ever seen. The system is not the problem here, you are. You are prejudiced against it. And there is a very good reason for that prejudice.

Do you have a link to the Federal rules of evidence? The only way I'll agree to these rules is if logic supercedes them, in the event that an illogical condition arises that the federal rules doesn't address.

Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge is it?

Evidence is evidence and if we are in a discussion where we are going to evaluate evidence then we need a standard so it isn't just me arguing for and you against.

You may google Federal Rules of Evidence and select your choice or use this link. It will take you to a 2009 version which should be adequate along with the underlying legal theories.

judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/1 ... id2009.pdf