Post #9. I said.What agreement?..
You said.
- The prophecy must be accepted as is. Each one represents a “bit” of information. Only its symbolic mathematical value will be of account.
I am happy to use more than reasonable figures when the time comes and we are hashing out the evidence now. This is how Christians verify the authenticity of Christianity after all. We do not live and die by the opinions of experts thousands of years removed from the facts upon which they pontificate, but because we are absolutely mathematically certain that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.I can agree to this so long as you can show the mathematical figures attached to the prophecy are reasoned and supportable with evidence.
So from the post I quoted from in post #9, we can throw out the second premise correct? The mathematical figure and probability will be acceptable but the prophecies will not be assumed to be true.Post #9. I said.
You said.
I am happy to use more than reasonable figures when the time comes and we are hashing out the evidence now. This is how Christians verify the authenticity of Christianity after all. We do not live and die by the opinions of experts thousands of years removed from the facts upon which they pontificate, but because we are absolutely mathematically certain that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
Why would we do that?So from the post I quoted from in post #9, we can throw out the second premise correct? The mathematical figure and probability will be acceptable but the prophecies will not be assumed to be true.
Because the second premise does not follow the historical method, if you want to understand why I say this, feel free to check the last few of my post, I referenced the historical method and explained why assuming the Bibles authenticity is unwarranted and is counterproductive of uncovering the truth of the prophecies.Why would we do that?
We are doing a mathematical analysis because mathematical reasoning is rigorous and provides an extremely high degree of certainty. Using the historical method as you suggest is a logically fallacious appeal to authority.Because the second premise does not follow the historical method… uncovering the truth of the prophecies.
I agree but what the mathematics cannot do in this case is suggest whether an event occurred or not. That is why the historical method is necessary.We are doing a mathematical analysis because mathematical reasoning is rigorous and provides an extremely high degree of certainty.
You do realise that the historical method is academically accepted as the best method of uncovering historical truths? Do you have a method that you feel is better? If you say mathematics, can you detail how exactly it is more capable of uncovering truth than the historical method?Using the historical method as you suggest is a logically fallacious appeal to authority.
We have already had this conversation. There are 73 books that all tell essentially the same story documenting G-d and mans relationship over the course of thousands of years. Any one book is verified by the other 72 documents that agree with it. Together they can be mathematically verified. Unless you have some evidence of collusion by desert nomads, who lived thousands of years apart to form a religion different than the one they already had. There is no reason to take them as anything but the documentation of ancient events that they are.I agree but what the mathematics cannot do in this case is suggest whether an event occurred or not…
Mathematical reasoning is rigorous and provides a great deal of certainty. The historical method used as suggested is a logical fallacy. The best accepted logical fallacy in the world, is still fallacious. Mathematical analysis does not uncover more truth, it is simply certain about the truth it does uncover.You do realise that the historical method is academically accepted as the best method of uncovering historical truths? Do you have a method that you feel is better? If you say mathematics, can you detail how exactly it is more capable of uncovering truth than the historical method?
And as I went through all of the conclusions you have drawn, I outlined how much analysis is required to reach those conclusions. Feel free to read back on the last few posts, if you don’t want to, let me know and I can present them again.We have already had this conversation. There are 73 books that all tell essentially the same story documenting G-d and mans relationship over the course of thousands of years. Any one book is verified by the other 72 documents that agree with it. Together they can be mathematically verified. Unless you have some evidence of collusion by desert nomads, who lived thousands of years apart to form a religion different than the one they already had. There is no reason to take them as anything but the documentation of ancient events that they are.
According to you, however any historian who is actually schooled and experienced in uncovering historical truth disagrees with you as the entirety of historic academia is based upon the historical method.Mathematical reasoning is rigorous and provides a great deal of certainty. The historical method used as suggested is a logical fallacy.
You haven’t demonstrated that it is a logical fallacy, you have just suggested that mathematics alone can show that these events occurred and then told me and everyone that will listen that using the historical method here would be a logical fallacy.The best accepted logical fallacy in the world, is still fallacious.
I never said it uncovered more truth, I asked if you thought it was more capable at uncovering historical truths than the historical method. And then I asked you to present evidence to support your assertion.Mathematical analysis does not uncover more truth, it is simply certain about the truth it does uncover.
We documented historical events. If you have no evidence of collusion, then you have no reason to reject our documentation. If I gave you biography of Lincolns boyhood or presidency, you wouldn’t ask me to prove to you who it was written by or when it was written in order to prove that Lincoln lived, you could read it and see that it describes essentially the same man as every other biography on Lincoln. That’s all the analysis it takes.You have made the assertion that the Bible is true by default, now you need to support that statement with more than, “each book is verified by the other 72 documents.” Because that in itself is not a default position, it requires a lot of analysis. So if you want me to agree with you on this premise you need to show it to be true and we are going to have to use the historical method to make that analysis.
You stated.According to you…You haven’t demonstrated that it is a logical fallacy,
An appeal to authority becomes fallacious when one claims that it uncovers truth. As you do here.I referenced the historical method and explained why assuming the Bibles authenticity is unwarranted and is counterproductive of uncovering the truth of the prophecies.
Yes, and I answered. Its obvious, mathematical reasoning provides a certainty that peoples opinions don’t.I never said it uncovered more truth, I asked if you thought it was more capable at uncovering historical truths than the historical method. And then I asked you to present evidence to support your assertion.
This is a claim, can you show beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a documentation of historical events?We documented historical events.
Based on this reasoning I should also accept Aesop’s fables, the Hindu Vedas and the Qur’an. The burden of proof rests on those making claims, you are the only one making claims here so the burden naturally falls on you. Your assertion that the Bible is ‘proof’ and then your your decision not to analyze it and show that it really is ‘proof’ does not fulfill the burden of proof.If you have no evidence of collusion, then you have no reason to reject our documentation.
Do you really think that there is a similar amount evidence in favor of Lincoln’s existence as there is to the Bible? Could you support this claim with evidence? If I were after an accurate biography of Lincoln then I would reference many sources attesting to Lincoln’s existence and actions within his life to show that this biography really is accurate. You can’t take everything you read to be literally true because there are some things that are, by the nature or contradiction, false.If I gave you biography of Lincolns boyhood or presidency, you wouldn’t ask me to prove to you who it was written by or when it was written in order to prove that Lincoln lived, you could read it and see that it describes essentially the same man as every other biography on Lincoln.
That’s all the analysis it takes to conclude that all of the biographies you have read attest to a similar man’s existence, that’s what your analysis has uncovered. We still have some of Lincoln’s letters and writings, we have a lot of information from those close to him that are about him, if you actually research, you can conclude a lot about who Lincoln was and what Lincoln did and after getting a better insight into that you can really make a judgement on whether or not each biography is right or wrong.That’s all the analysis it takes.
I never said it is perfect or that it always uncovers truth, I said that it is the best method we have for uncovering historical truth. This is therefore not an appeal to authority.An appeal to authority becomes fallacious when one claims that it uncovers truth. As you do here.
- Source A says that p is true.
- Source A is authoritative.
- Therefore, p is true.
I know this about mathematical reasoning and agree but how does mathematical reasoning uncover historical truth? Could you explain that process?Yes, and I answered. Its obvious, mathematical reasoning provides a certainty that peoples opinions don’t.
We have 73 different documents attesting to it. When taken as a whole they are mathematically verifiable.This is a claim, can you show beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a documentation of historical events?
Feel free. Only Christianity is mathematically verifiable.Based on this reasoning I should also accept Aesop’s fables, the Hindu Vedas and the Qur’an. …
Exactly. We have 73 different documents attesting to G-ds existence and actions concerning our salvation.… If I were after an accurate biography of Lincoln then I would reference many sources attesting to Lincoln’s existence and actions within his life to show that this biography really is accurate…
I don’t agree that its the best method, Mathematical analysis is much more precise and certain. The historical method doesn’t stop being a logical fallacy because it is the only method available or allowed. It remains a logical fallacy because it is an inherently flawed way to reason.I never said it is perfect or that it always uncovers truth, I said that it is the best method we have for uncovering historical truth. This is therefore not an appeal to authority.
Are you asking me the methodology yet again?I know this about mathematical reasoning and agree but how does mathematical reasoning uncover historical truth? Could you explain that process?
You appear to have created a circular argument.We have 73 different documents attesting to it. When taken as a whole they are mathematically verifiable.
According to you and some guy that wrote a book.Feel free. Only Christianity is mathematically verifiable.
If you are so confident that they do attest to truth then why are you so unwilling to analyze them historically?Exactly. We have 73 different documents attesting to G-ds existence and actions concerning our salvation.
How does mathematics have anything to do with historical truth though? How does it reach a conclusion on whether something happens in the past or not? Perhaps probabilities could do something but even then we would need to analyze the historicity of the evidence that the probabilities of truth are based on.I don’t agree that its the best method, Mathematical analysis is much more precise and certain.
This again appears to disagree with the entire academic community, are you a historian? Have you ever made any contribution to finding historical truths? Why should we believe what you say about the historical method when people that actually do know a lot about history and make massive contributions to our knowledge of history disagree with you?The historical method doesn’t stop being a logical fallacy because it is the only method available or allowed. It remains a logical fallacy because it is an inherently flawed way to reason.
Pretty much except this time I have absolutely no idea how mathematics could be used to uncover historical truth, please enlighten me.Are you asking me the methodology yet again?
You appear to have created a circular argument.
“We have 73 books that attest to the truth that they were created as a documentation of events that occurred throughout history.”
No, it’s evidence that people wrote something down, whether fictional or not is what I want to find out.The fact that we have the 73 documents, is evidence that we documented history.
How is that a strawman? I really do not understand how that could be a strawman, I get it, the Bible was written over thousands of years and contains many different books by different authors. Completely agree. What I am asking you is if you are willing to historically analyze the documents to show that what they claim is true.You can buy a Bible anywhere. I said that we documented history, your straw man was “Can you show that what they claim is historically accurate?”.
Do you have any idea what the burden of proof is? Because if you are making a claim like, “The Bible is true,” then you are the one that must support this claim. Saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so is circular reasoning so the only way to really uncover the truth in this claim is to analyze the Bible.You are seeking to find any way to put the burden back on me because you have no evidence of collusion, and if you do not, then we have no reason to doubt the documentation.
Yes the methodologies for uncovering historical truth with any branch of mathematics would be fantastic.Unless you are asking me about methodology again, the question is nonsensical.
Most believe out of ‘faith’. They don’t necessarily know nor care about the ‘mathematic validation’.According to every single Christian that ever lived. It is the reason Christianity exists.
So you disagree with the historical method and subsequently the entirety of historic academia? And you don’t even understand the question, “how does your alternative to the historical method uncover historical truth?”The same reason I am unwilling to count any logical fallacy as valid. Its not valid by its very definition.
What logical fallacy? Argument ad populum? Where did I make that? Argument from authority? Where did I make that? I let you know the facts. The historical method is agreed to be the best method of uncovering historical truth. The entirety of the academy of history supports the historical method. The entire subject of history is based on the historical method. None of this is fallacious, these are facts. I’m not suggesting conclusions made by historians or made with the use of the historical method are necessarily true, I am just letting you know that your little disagreement, the one you have failed to give details about is currently unfounded and spits in the face of everything we know about history.You cannot base a very certain analytical technique on an uncertain logical fallacy and expect to find truth, which is the goal around here.
So you keep telling me.The fact they they are mathematically verifiable is meaningful.
This debate was going to be between us, not between anyone else.People giving opinions is not. Having sat through a dissertation defense or two, and a great many of these specific conversations. My experience is that for every use of the “historical method” you have an “expert” who completely disagrees with another “expert”. In the end you never reach any truth more significant the" I can find experts who disagree with your experts".
See now I know you definitely don’t know what it means because I never made an argument in what you quoted, which meas it’s impossible for me to make a logical fallacy. I asked you questions and stated a fact.So you are making a logically fallacious ad populam, to argue in favor of another logical fallacy? What!?
It’s a simple question. You claim mathematics is superior to the historical method when it comes to uncovering historical truth. What made you reach that conclusion? How does mathematics uncover historical truth at all?This question seems nonsensical to me.
As you admitted with Lincoln, you look for other corroborating sources. Every book has 72 others that corroborate it the same way.No, it’s evidence that people wrote something down, whether fictional or not is what I want to find out.
Because you changed what I wrote down.How is that a strawman? I really do not understand how that could be a strawman,
I said that we documented history, your straw man was “Can you show that what they claim is historically accurate?”.
No, of course not, I keep trying to tell you that mathematical analysis is more precise, and the historical method is a logical fallacy. I don’t see there there is any daylight to argue about it.I get it, the Bible was written over thousands of years and contains many different books by different authors. Completely agree. What I am asking you is if you are willing to historically analyze the documents to show that what they claim is true.
The burden of proof is on you. I claim Christianity is true, I present these 73 well corroborated documents. Unless you have some evidence against them, I see no reason to reject them any more than I do any other historical event that I have read about. I do not accept the idea that we must use a logical fallacy to verify the Truth of Christianity. Mathematical verification is the traditional way, the precise way, the certain way.Do you have any idea what the burden of proof is? Because if you are making a claim like, “The Bible is true,” then you are the one that must support this claim. Saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so is circular reasoning so the only way to really uncover the truth in this claim is to analyze the Bible.
Its true most of them do not know that the source of our "faith " is so real, so visceral. However, in my experience, when you explain it to them they care very much.Most believe out of ‘faith’. They don’t necessarily know nor care about the ‘mathematic validation’.
I don’t disagree with the historical method for what it really is. Its just a best guess, its an interesting intellectual endeavor for some. Our purpose here is to find truth, that is not what most historians would say the historical method finds. What makes it a fallacy is the way you are attempting to use it. You want to appeal to authorities find the truth of prophecy as you stated. If I were interested in what were just likely, or best guesses, I wouldn’t bother to be a Christian.So you disagree with the historical method and subsequently the entirety of historic academia? And you don’t even understand the question, “how does your alternative to the historical method uncover historical truth?”…
You saidSee now I know you definitely don’t know what it means because I never made an argument in what you quoted, which meas it’s impossible for me to make a logical fallacy. I asked you questions and stated a fact.
You are appealing to the “entire academic community” to support your claim. That’s an ad populam Your claim that we can use the historical method to uncover the truth of prophecy is a fallacious appeal to authority. Therefore you are attempting to use one logical fallacy to support your claimm for another logical fallacy.This again appears to disagree with the entire academic community, are you a historian? Have you ever made any contribution to finding historical truths? Why should we believe what you say about the historical method when people that actually do know a lot about history and make massive contributions to our knowledge of history disagree with you?
Mathematics is precise, rigorous and therefore provides a high degree of certainty. The historical method amounts to asking other people what their opinion.It’s a simple question. You claim mathematics is superior to the historical method when it comes to uncovering historical truth. What made you reach that conclusion? How does mathematics uncover historical truth at all?
I disagree with this conclusion, can we analyze the books historically to corroborate your claim that each one of the 73 books support the others?As you admitted with Lincoln, you look for other corroborating sources. Every book has 72 others that corroborate it the same way.
No, I questioned what you wrote down.Because you changed what I wrote down.
Well of course there is because you haven’t even explained how mathematics can reach any conclusions on historical truth and all you’ve given is your opinions of the historical method. You have not presented another method to use, just repeated that mathematics is more precise over and over again.No, of course not, I keep trying to tell you that mathematical analysis is more precise, and the historical method is a logical fallacy. I don’t see there there is any daylight to argue about it.
No it isn’t because what this whole thread is about is analyzing the evidence you presented to support your claim. Until this analysis is done we cannot conclude that your evidence counts for anything.The burden of proof is on you.
And I am questioning the authenticity and the truth within what you claim here as evidence.I claim Christianity is true, I present these 73 well corroborated documents.
Again, this is not how the burden of proof works. If someone presents a claim such as, “these 73 books are true.” They have to support that claim and in order to do so we have to do an analysis.Unless you have some evidence against them, I see no reason to reject them any more than I do any other historical event that I have read about.
Understandably, now it’s about time you demonstrate how the historical method being used to uncover historical truth is a logical fallacy. Claiming mathematics is more precise over and over again is not enough, you need to demonstrate why it is superior.I do not accept the idea that we must use a logical fallacy to verify the Truth of Christianity.
I doubt these claims are true in regards to uncovering historical truth, could you support corroborating evidence in these matters?Mathematical verification is the traditional way, the precise way, the certain way.
That is irrelevant, your claim has just been demonstrated to be false, most Christians are unaware of any mathematical proof assuming any exists.Its true most of them do not know that the source of our "faith " is so real, so visceral. However, in my experience, when you explain it to them they care very much.
This just demonstrates ignorance on your part of how the historical method is used and what it actually does.I don’t disagree with the historical method for what it really is. Its just a best guess
Could you cite a few historians to support this claim then?its an interesting intellectual endeavor for some. Our purpose here is to find truth, that is not what most historians would say the historical method finds.
Using the historical method to uncover historical truth… Yeah, probably not a logical fallacy.What makes it a fallacy is the way you are attempting to use it.
How am I trying to appeal to authorities? Using the historical method is currently the best accepted model for uncovering historical truth, this is a fact. You are yet to present a method that rivals it, only random claims of mathematics.You want to appeal to authorities find the truth of prophecy as you stated. If I were interested in what were just likely, or best guesses, I wouldn’t bother to be a Christian.
You haven’t demonstrated that use of the historical method here is fallacious, only made claims. In order for this to be an ad populum, I need to actually make a claim such as, “x is true because the historical community at large says so.” That is an ad populum, that isn’t what I am suggesting though. What I am telling you are facts, the entire academic community of history is based upon the use of the historical method. That is a fact and one you seem entirely ignorant of because you think the method is “just a guess”.You said
You are appealing to the “entire academic community” to support your claim. That’s an ad populam Your claim that we can use the historical method to uncover the truth of prophecy is a fallacious appeal to authority. Therefore you are attempting to use one logical fallacy to support your claimm for another logical fallacy.
This didn’t answer the question, it just gave a general overview of mathematics not in any relation to history and then gave your opinion on the historical method. This kind of vague avoidance of providing any meaningful answer is dishonest.Mathematics is precise, rigorous and therefore provides a high degree of certainty. The historical method amounts to asking other people what their opinion.
You cannot, you already admitted that the method I suggest is the same one you would use to verify a historical figure. Its much too late too walk that back now. As to the rest, its much to long to deal with for such a simple issue. You issued the challenge. Academic opinions are logically fallacious and meaningless next to the rigor and certainty of a mathematical analysis. You are trying to misuse the historical method. I have pointed this out several times, either accept my terms or don’t.I disagree with this conclusion, …
I did no such thing, I spoke about referencing historical documents and detailing the life of the historical figure by using the historical method. You said that I should read an autobiography and if it is similar to other autobiographies then it is probably true.You cannot, you already admitted that the method I suggest is the same one you would use to verify a historical figure. Its much too late too walk that back now.
Yes and you’ve chosen not to accept by giving your opinions on the historical method and suggesting there are other methods but not detailing them to any reasonable degree.As to the rest, its much to long to deal with for such a simple issue. You issued the challenge.
Can they be put next to the rigor of mathematical analysis though? You have given absolutely no evidence or reason to presume maths can be used in this case, only unevidenced and useless assertions and opinions.Academic opinions are logically fallacious and meaningless next to the rigor and certainty of a mathematical analysis.
So using the historical method to uncover historical truth is a misuse of the historical method? Yeah, good luck.You are trying to misuse the historical method.
You have mentioned it several times while failing to present any kind of reason to believe that mathematics can uncover historical truth. Seriously, all you have is unsupported assertions and they are meaningless to debate.I have pointed this out several times
I’m not accepting your terms because they are unreasonable and useless if we are trying to uncover truth.either accept my terms or don’t.
Logical Fallacy Vs. Mathematical analysis…Your proposal of a logical fallacy to find truth is unreasonable.…I’m not accepting your terms because they are unreasonable and useless if we are trying to uncover truth…
Notice how you continuously ignore my questions regarding the role of mathematics in historical matters, this is why it’s difficult to take you seriously, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were trolling.Logical Fallacy Vs. Mathematical analysis…Your proposal of a logical fallacy to find truth is unreasonable.