No such thing as a hierarchical causal series in the real world

  • Thread starter Thread starter lelinator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is why I clarified with the “just the facts, ma’am”, which is NOT a cop-out. It is the very antithesis of a cop-out.
“just the facts, ma’am” is said by a cop. It excludes some areas of testimony in favor of a certain line preferred by the investigator. That qualifies as a “cop out” in my understanding, an avoidance or inadequate performance of a task.
 
“just the facts, ma’am” is said by a cop.
Well, I am not a cop. I am interested in facts, and not what the author “intended” to convey. I am capable to draw my own conclusions from the facts.

Moreover, there are all sorts of “sacred texts” out there. Every one of them claims to be the one and only true bearer of truth, and yet they are seriously incompatible with each other. Every adherent of every religion proclaims that only THEIR sacred text is the real one, and all the others are either incomplete or erroneous. So what should the skeptic do?
 
You are always welcome to suggest another one. Please give me the details. I am very much willing to entertain your suggestions.
Well, remember that the issue here is the question of whether there’s some point at which we look at an intransigent person and say “stop being difficult; it’s obvious you’re just refusing to admit what’s clear to any reasonable person to see!” I don’t think “beyond any reasonable doubt” – as in the standard by which criminal trials operate – is that standard. And, of course, this isn’t intended to be the only standard by which we judge things, right? It’s just that, when many (most?) say that there’s something going on, is there a threshold beyond which we admit that something’s happening. So… what would that standard be?
This does not apply here. The texts all have been edited, re-written, translated - several times. The “authors” were all unknown people, and textual analysis shows that every gospel was written by several authors. They are all hearsay testimonies - several times over.
I disagree. The texts have been translated, all right, but we don’t have evidence that they’ve been substantially “re-written”, as you suggest. Moreover, the authors are known – contemporary writers, in the early days of the Church, identify them definitively. Moreover, if they were truly anonymous, then why would all the copies identify the works by the same names for the same Gospels? (See Petri’s “The Case for Jesus” for more details of why the “anonymous Gospels” idea fails to hold up to scrutiny.)

I’d like to see the works that assert, as you claim, that “every Gospel was written by several authors.” Would you mind providing a citation… or three? 😉

On the face of it, your claims that “they are all hearsay testimonies” doesn’t really hold up – unless you have anything to substantiate your claim.
History might be interesting, but cannot be accepted as a substitutes for first hand information.
So, when you’re dead and gone, and nothing but dust in a box, will we then be forced to suggest that you’re only “interesting”, but not real?
Suggest a different one. I understand it as being historically correct, properly describing the actual events.
In the context of Scriptural exegesis, the term “literal sense” means “the intent of the inspired author.” This may – or may not – be the intent to convey a historical narrative. Nevertheless, the intent is to convey the truth of the inspiration given by God.
The same as you would assert the biblical texts… divinely inspired - whatever that might mean. Historically correct, verbatim, precise. Pick your word.
If you want to suggest that the writings of other religious traditions are potentially “divinely inspired”, then you’d have to produce evidence for that claim. Christians point to Jesus’ predictions (which have come true) as well as His resurrection, as evidence of the truth of the proposition that He is divine.
 
It is not “snark”. It shows that the “divinely inspired, sacred text” of another religion is not measured on the same scale.
No, it certainly is snarky and sarcastic. It chuckles at the notion that one group considers their writings divinely inspired. It’s not an “assessment process”; it’s a 19th century mode of saying “yeah, dude… whatever.”
This is my question: IF we had time travel, and IF we could go back in time, and observed the events, what are those parts of the bible which we both accept that they properly described these events?
The parts that we consider “historical books”, but not books which are not in that genre.
I am only interested in facts, not the intent of the author. I am able to make my interpretation based upon the information presented.
You might be in trouble, then. Do you go to the poetry section of the bookstore looking for “facts”? That’s kinda what you’re attempting to do, in this case… 🤔
I am interested in facts, and not what the author “intended” to convey.
Then you’re not interested in literary analysis. 😉
 
I don’t think “beyond any reasonable doubt” – as in the standard by which criminal trials operate – is that standard
This standard is reserved for any and all important questions, not just in criminal cases. As a matter of fact it is used in criminal cases, BECAUSE it is the best, most reliable method. And if you cannot offer a substitute method, that is fine, just be honest and admit it.

Might be interesting read for you.

It chuckles at the notion that one group considers their writings divinely inspired.
Every group which has some sacred texts claims that theirs is divinely inspired and denies the same claim for every other group. And that was expressed sarcastically presented by Bierce. But being sarcastic does not make it invalid.
The parts that we consider “historical books”, but not books which are not in that genre.
This kind of cop-out is so aggravating. To wit:

Which ones are those historical books? List them, please. And what epistemological method do you suggest for the others?
Do you go to the poetry section of the bookstore looking for “facts”?
I am not interested in poetry. And not interested in literary analysis either. I like fiction, as long as it does not wish to pretend that it is factually correct. I am interested in cold, hard facts. Which are the books which accurately reflect the actual events, and what evidence can you supply for it?

If you don’t have an answer, that is fine. I do not expect to see one. But be intellectually honest and admit it.
 
This standard is reserved for any and all important questions, not just in criminal cases.
Ok, then: substantiate this claim, please.
As a matter of fact it is used in criminal cases, BECAUSE it is the best, most reliable method.
If this is true, then why is it not the standard in all types of judicial cases? Why is it not used in all contexts? You’re digging yourself into a hole, brother… 😉
And if you cannot offer a substitute method, that is fine, just be honest and admit it.
I asked the question to begin with. You’re the one who attempted to answer it. 😉
Might be interesting read for you.
🤣
When I asked for citations, I was hoping for something more authoritative and scholarly than Wiki. Is that the best you’ve got…? :roll_eyes:

(Incidentally, the context of my response is the Gospels. You seem to have missed that part of the assertion. 😉 )
And that was expressed sarcastically presented by Bierce.
Thank you for admitting I was correct: it was snark and sarcasm. 😉
Which ones are those historical books? List them, please.
Seriously? It’s a standard term. Look it up. 😉
And what epistemological method do you suggest for the others?
The methods appropriate for the various genres of literature which they represent. What else would you expect? 🤔
I am not interested in poetry. And not interested in literary analysis either.
Then, in all charity, I’d recommend that you don’t attempt to analyze the Bible, then. You’ll end up frustrated and you won’t look too terribly credible, either. 😉
Which are the books which accurately reflect the actual events, and what evidence can you supply for it?
Let’s start with the easiest answer, and move from there. “The Gospels” are one good answer. The evidence is the style of writing, the way the accounts were received, and the writings of those who received the accounts.
If you don’t have an answer, that is fine. I do not expect to see one. But be intellectually honest and admit it.
I do have an answer. Sorry to disappoint your expectations. My intellectual honesty isn’t in doubt here. 😉
 
If this is true, then why is it not the standard in all types of judicial cases? Why is it not used in all contexts?
Because it is simply not relevant in all cases. The more important the topic is, the more stringent criteria we use. Is this new for you? Let’s use an analogy: “Do not shoot a sparrow with a Gatling gun.”
Thank you for admitting I was correct: it was snark and sarcasm.
And you missed the point: “just because the answer is sarcastic, it does not render it incorrect”. (You are welcome.) Every apologist for every religion utters the claim: “We are right and you are wrong!! Our sacred book is divinely inspired, and yours is not!!”. And none of them is able to provide a rationale for it. Just like two kids in the kindergarten.
Seriously? It’s a standard term. Look it up.
Really? Is there a list about the books which are historically accurate? Along with substantiating arguments?
The methods appropriate for the various genres of literature which they represent. What else would you expect?
The only relevant question here is “history”. The question was: “Which are the books which accurately reflect the actual events, and what evidence can you supply for it?” No reply. As usual. 🙂
 
Because it is simply not relevant in all cases.
Perfect answer. Why, then, would you assert it’s relevant here, in the context of Scripture, which is not monolithically a work of news reportage?
The more important the topic is, the more stringent criteria we use. Is this new for you?
No. I’ve heard people misuse the quote “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” all the time, in the context of attempting to discredit Christian faith claims. 😉
And you missed the point: “just because the answer is sarcastic, it does not render it incorrect”.
Similarly, you’re not recognizing that just because it’s witty and uses sarcasm, that does not render it correct. 😉
Every apologist for every religion utters the claim: “We are right and you are wrong!! Our sacred book is divinely inspired, and yours is not!!”.
I don’t agree that every believer makes that claim. Nevertheless, this highlights the point that it’s the argument for the validity of the claim, and not the claim itself, that’s in play here.
Really? Is there a list about the books which are historically accurate?
Really. There are a portion of the books of the Bible that are called the “Historical Books”. Of course, since they’re ancient literature, you’ll have to roll up your sleeves and do the literary analysis according to the genre as it existed in that time and place. It’s a novice’s error to presume that the literature of the modern day and the literature of other cultures and times are identical in form, intent, and expression. 😉
The question was: “Which are the books which accurately reflect the actual events , and what evidence can you supply for it?”
So, step back for a minute and ask yourself: what possible evidence for historical events in antiquity might you posit exists? And, if there’s little to no possibility – other than the extant records themselves! – then your question isn’t being asked in good faith.
No reply. As usual.
Lots of replies. A stunning attempt to characterize them as non-responsive. As usual. 😉
 
Perfect answer. Why, then, would you assert it’s relevant here, in the context of Scripture, which is not monolithically a work of news reportage?
That is the problem with the scripture, not the demand for the evidence. If God would have inspired the text, he could have inspired it along with the evidence. The usual objection is that if we would have physical evidence, then we would not need “faith”, and I cannot imagine a less convincing argument.

Sure you could bring up John 20:29 " Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." But this is not something that any skeptic would accept as a valid argument.
No. I’ve heard people misuse the quote “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” all the time, in the context of attempting to discredit Christian faith claims.
What is wrong with the principle? If you would claim that you won 10 dollars on the lottery, no one would demand evidence for it… your word would be accepted without any evidence - because the claim is simply mundane or irrelevant. But if you would claim that you have been kidnapped by space aliens, that claim would not be accepted without evidence. Is that surprising? The more outlandish the claim is the more evidence is required to accept it.
Similarly, you’re not recognizing that just because it’s witty and uses sarcasm, that does not render it correct.
The claim here is NOT substantiated by the sarcasm. It is substantiated by the FACT that every religion claims to have been inspired by their respected deity.
I don’t agree that every believer makes that claim.
OK… not literally every believer. Every religion. Pick Christianity, Islam and Mormonism as three examples. All of them have their sacred books. All of them claim divine origin or inspiration. All of them declare the opposition to be “invalid”.
Really. There are a portion of the books of the Bible that are called the “Historical Books”. Of course, since they’re ancient literature, you’ll have to roll up your sleeves and do the literary analysis according to the genre as it existed in that time and place. It’s a novice’s error to presume that the literature of the modern day and the literature of other cultures and times are identical in form, intent, and expression.
If something is assumed to be historically accurate, then it does not require “analysis”. There is no need for some analysis to substantiate that the Vesuvius wiped out Pompei. The physical evidence is sufficient.

Besides, which ones are those “Historical Books”? And what kind of evidence is presented for them… and for the others? I already asked this, and you did not present an answer.
 
So, step back for a minute and ask yourself: what possible evidence for historical events in antiquity might you posit exists ? And, if there’s little to no possibility – other than the extant records themselves! – then your question isn’t being asked in good faith.
This is the point. I am not inclined or expected to provide the epistemological method to substantiate YOUR claim. It is your job. And if you are unable to provide it, then your claim will be considered unsubstantiated. And as you might say: “asserted without evidence, rejected without evidence.”

And why is such a question not presented in “good faith”??? I ask a question for which I have no answer, and as such I rely on you to provide it. I also promise to analyze your response and NOT reject it out of hand. Why is that approach declared to be “not in good faith”?
Lots of replies. A stunning attempt to characterize them as non-responsive. As usual.
My question was: " Which are the books which accurately reflect the actual events , and what evidence can you supply for it?" And there is NO reply for the actual question. This is yet another FACT.
 
The results show that for the first observer the photon is in a fixed state, and for the second observer the photon is in a superposition of states. It’s not that the state is ambiguous for the second observer, meaning that they just don’t know what state it’s in. They do in fact know exactly what state it’s in…it’s in a superposition of states.

Superposition is a very real and measurable state with measurable physical effects. It’s not simply a matter of the second observer not knowing. That would hardly have been a newsworthy experiment.

What the experiment demonstrated is that one observer can see a photon in a fixed state, while a second observer sees it in a state of superposition. Two entirely different yet measurable states.
I’m a solipsist
So, you should be thinking about there being only one observer, but two methods of observation, perhaps, if you like, two realities that emerge from using the equipment in different ways. Understanding ourselves as relational beings, the difference would be seen as arising from how we are interacting with the object, that is other to the self carrying out the observations. We here, of course, are contemplating the information and its interpretation conveyed by the person who carried out the experiment.
“It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement.”
Measurements, I would point out, are a reflection our relational nature, ultimately associated with our capacities to know and to act as causal agents. We transform the reality by what we do.

Using a tape measure to determine a distance travelled and a stopwatch to measure time, doesn’t change the situation much other than in our minds who then imagine a four-dimensional space-time structure. Our relationship with the reality is changed, with any beauty inherent in the event possibly sucked out, albeit in the revelation of another underlying wonder. But, the object, say in the measurement of the speed of light, the beam, is unchanged.

However, as we know, to get at very small events, the methods we use impact on them, and give us different results depending on what we do.

Whether it actually applies in this case, using Gorgias’ analogy of a coin flip, if we attempt to find attributes of the coin by sending it flying into the air to see how it lands, we get a heads or tails. Utilizing another method, we find the coin is both heads and tails.
 
Last edited:
If God would have inspired the text, he could have inspired it along with the evidence.
And the fact that He didn’t do so – and more to the point, that He didn’t do it precisely to your specification and liking – is supposed to mean that we reject it? Ludicrous!
The usual objection is that if we would have physical evidence, then we would not need “faith”, and I cannot imagine a less convincing argument.
I don’t think that’s the right argument. After all, for those who witnessed Jesus’ ministry (including not only His teaching, but His miracles and resurrection), there was certainly empirical evidence! No, what you’re grousing about is the fact that this evidence isn’t available to you, personally! That’s immaterial, of course: the evidence of just about everything in antiquity is gone; that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, or that the accounts of it are now suspect.
What is wrong with the principle?
Because it works for events that happen now, and for which there’s the reasonable expectation of finding evidence. On the other hand, it sets up an impossible standard for events that happened in antiquity however; that’s why you’re not asking in good faith when you demand the same kind of evidence for Jesus’ life as you might for what I had for dinner last night. 😉
The more outlandish the claim is the more evidence is required to accept it.
Again: “illative sense”. If you’re unwilling to accept the written testimonies of those who were present, then that’s up to you. You don’t get to claim “no evidence, man”, though – if you were being intellectually honest, you’d claim “I refuse to accept the extant evidence.”
The claim here is NOT substantiated by the sarcasm.
I see. So, you presented an assertion which you admit is baseless, but which you merely happen to agree with. And we believers are the ones who truck in irrationality…? 🤔
40.png
IQ170:
Every religion . Pick Christianity, Islam and Mormonism as three examples.
And you could just as easily pick three that don’t make exclusive claims. Cherry pick, much? 😉
Besides, which ones are those “Historical Books”? And what kind of evidence is presented for them… and for the others? I already asked this, and you did not present an answer.
:roll_eyes:
Seriously?
40.png
IQ170:
This is the point. I am not inclined or expected to provide the epistemological method to substantiate YOUR claim. It is your job.
I think you have me confused with another person or another conversation you’re having. I merely asked whether there’s a point at which, when a person intransigently refuses to accept that which most/all accept, if there’s a point we can define beyond which we simply shrug and say “you’re the outlier here; it’s generally accepted.” That’s not a claim; it’s a question. 😉
 
And why is such a question not presented in “good faith”???
Your proposal sets up an impossible standard – one which cannot be met, by its very definition. If I told you that I’d accept your assertions if and only if you produced a flying pink unicorn who could substantiate them… well, I’d not be acting in good faith. 😉
My question was: " Which are the books which accurately reflect the actual events , and what evidence can you supply for it?" And there is NO reply for the actual question.
That’s because you’re setting up a straw man. The Bible wasn’t written to be the “CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite” for the ancient near east of antiquity. Approaching it as if it were – and then castigating it because it’s not – is a faulty approach. If you want to feel justified, simply because you knocked down a straw man of your own creation, have at it. Just don’t try to assert that, in doing so, you’ve done something valuable or praiseworthy. 😉
 
And the fact that He didn’t do so – and more to the point, that He didn’t do it precisely to your specification and liking – is supposed to mean that we reject it? Ludicrous!
That “precisely to my liking” is all the skeptical non-Christians. (Ad hominem, much?) The point is that he could have “inspired” the description of the actual events and the supporting evidence, but did not. This is a fact.
After all, for those who witnessed Jesus’ ministry (including not only His teaching, but His miracles and resurrection), there was certainly empirical evidence!
Allegedly witnessed the alleged events. On what grounds do you assert that those events would withstand the method of “Time Travel Authentication”?

The problem is that there is no evidence for the miracles and the resurrection. And, of course all those other religions claim to have their miracles, and you discard them out of hand, due to the lack of evidence. It is fine that you use different measuring sticks for them… but at least be honest about it. Intransigent much?
That’s immaterial, of course: the evidence of just about everything in antiquity is gone; that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, or that the accounts of it are now suspect.
It would be refreshingly honest if you did not distort the claims of the skeptics. 😉
If you’re unwilling to accept the written testimonies of those who were present, then that’s up to you.
Who were allegedly present at the alleged events.
Seriously?
Ah, so now you wish to send me on a wild goose chase, but when I presented a link, you discarded it, due to the fact that it involves the web. And you speak of “good faith”? Just send me one link with the list of the books in the Bible (chapters and verse) which the Vatican considers historically accurate. (TTA proof.) Along with the supporting evidence.
 
Your proposal sets up an impossible standard – one which cannot be met, by its very definition. If I told you that I’d accept your assertions if and only if you produced a flying pink unicorn who could
substantiate them… well, I’d not be acting in good faith.
The problem is not with the question, it is with the claim. If I would have a claim about that flying pink unicorn, then it would be perfectly proper to demand the actual evidence for the flying pink unicorn.
The Bible wasn’t written to be the “CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite” for the ancient near east of antiquity. Approaching it as if it were – and then castigating it because it’s not – is a faulty approach.
That is the point. And it is NOT a straw man. Remember, God COULD have inspired exactly what the skeptics look for. And even if you (personally) do not use the general excuse of “if you would have actual evidence, there would be no need for faith” - it is used all over the place. It is also a very important part of the Bible that faith is superior to (and more valuable than) reason. Just read John 20:29. Since you like to refer to Jesus, I will take the same approach.

Even though Luther broke away from the church, he was still part of it, when he said: “Reason must be trampled underfoot” and “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”. I am not aware that the Vatican ever castigated those remarks as heresies.

By the way, I asked which parts of the Bible were written in the same manner as the “Evening News”, and all I received was an invitation to a wild goose chase. “Good faith”, much? No, my friend. You are a “grand master” of evasion, “of turning the tables” and changing the subject, but that is not something “praiseworthy”.
 
That “precisely to my liking” is all the skeptical non-Christians. (Ad hominem, much?)
Ad hominem? Are you sure you know what that means? I’m not saying that it’s wrong because it’s you (and your fellow skeptics) who are saying it – I’m saying that it’s wrong because it has no logical grounds! Yeah, so God didn’t design things according to the way you’d like them designed. So what? Why is it logical that God is beholden to you in His decision on how to design and create the world?
The point is that he could have “inspired” the description of the actual events and the supporting evidence, but did not. This is a fact.
It’s an irrelevant fact, however. Why does it matter that He didn’t do so?
Allegedly witnessed the alleged events.
If you want to reject all the available evidence, then sure: “alleged”. Of course, you could stick your head in the sand, ostrich-style, and shout “alleged!” all day long… but that wouldn’t make it true. 😉
On what grounds do you assert that those events would withstand the method of “Time Travel Authentication”?
On the grounds that there’s no such thing as ‘Time Travel’, perhaps? Are you seriously suggesting that we posit the truth of the occurrence of an event on an epistemological approach that doesn’t exist?
The problem is that there is no evidence for the miracles and the resurrection.
Again: intellectual honesty is a beautiful thing. You should try it some time. “There is no extant empirical evidence for the miracles and the resurrection.” Critical distinction, and one that leads us to conclude “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in this case. 😉
It would be refreshingly honest if you did not distort the claims of the skeptics.
OK, try me, then: for those events in history that do not have extant empirical evidence, do skeptics say – as you have here – that the events did not take place?
Ah, so now you wish to send me on a wild goose chase
No, I sent you a link that pointed to Wiki’s discussion of the Historical Books of the Bible. You yourself used Wiki in this thread – now it’s a “wild goose chase”, just because I used it? :roll_eyes:
Remember, God COULD have inspired exactly what the skeptics look for.
So what? Unless you can prove the claim that God should have or must have done so, the “well… He could have” assertion doesn’t count for anything.
I asked which parts of the Bible were written in the same manner as the “Evening News”, and all I received was an invitation to a wild goose chase.
No, you received the response that this isn’t the genre of the writing. You also received the response that listed the books that bear the moniker “historical”. No evasion. Well… at least, not on my part. 😉
 
Yeah, so God didn’t design things according to the way you’d like them designed. So what? Why is it logical that God is beholden to you in His decision on how to design and create the world?
This “personal you” is getting tiresome. It is the teaching of the Christianity that God loves everyone and God wishes everyone to be with him. Form this teaching it follows not just logically, but rationally that God would give everyone all the necessary personalized help to aid us to be with him. If you don’t realize this, it is useless to have a conversation with you.
 
This “personal you” is getting tiresome.
My thought exactly. Why is it that you think that you get to dictate terms to God, personally? Tiring, indeed.
It is the teaching of the Christianity that God loves everyone and God wishes everyone to be with him. Form this teaching it follows not just logically, but rationally that God would give everyone all the necessary personalized help to aid us to be with him.
It really doesn’t. As the old fable goes, the world doesn’t owe you a living. God makes His offer to you, and bids you to take Him up on it. If you feel that He’s being unfair by not handing it to you on a silver platter, according to your whims, then that’s your issue; it’s irrational to blame your hubris on God. Do you expect that kind of service from everyone who loves you and wishes to have a relationship with you? If so, you’re going to find that you’re going to be a lonely and disappointed person, I’m afraid.
it is useless to have a conversation with you.
If you need everything to go your way, you’ll find that everyone – except those who are willing to cater to your every whim – are “useless” to you. 😉
 
Last edited:
As the old fable goes, the world doesn’t owe you a living.
An old “fable” is now an argument? And I am only looking for information, not a “living”.
God makes His offer to you, and bids you to take Him up on it. If you feel that He’s being unfair by not handing it to you on a silver platter, according to your whims, then that’s your issue; it’s irrational to blame your hubris on God.
That “silver platter” would only provide the necessary information to make an informed decision. The decision to be made would still be our responsibility, but at least we could make an informed decision.
Do you expect that kind of service from everyone who loves you and wishes to have a relationship with you?
Yes, I would expect that they ALL prove their existence. And so far I am neither lonely nor disappointed.
If you need everything to go your way, you’ll find that everyone – except those who are willing to cater to your every whim – are “useless” to you.
I only hope for a rational conversation. And in my world, if you “love” someone, then you do whatever is necessary to help them in their predicament. Especially if it does not cost you anything.

You keep on evading. All I say that IF you love someone, and IF you wish them to choose to be with you, then the bare minimum is to give them the necessary evidence about your existence so they would would have a real choice. Nothing outrageous about it. Just a few bytes of knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top