On the Necessity of Proving Things

[warpspeedpetey]

Hence why i said sane, however i will rephrase. There are an extremely limited amount of educated individuals that doubt the moon landings. I am not interested in th ‘opinion’ of ignorant individuals. Heck i saw a poll somewhere that said over 50% of Americans believed the world was 6000 years old, OVER 50%! LOL.

dont backpedal now, your contention that no one questions the moonlanding is obviously false. simply trying to make everyone that doesnt agree with you either crazy or ignorant, isnt a refutation. the polls showing 25% of russians and Britons have some doubts, dont indicate that it is a symptom of some ignorance. or a lack of education.

Further more if you cared to research the subject you would see that EVERY ONE of the conspiracy myths has been throughly debunked!

i have no need to, i dont doubt the moonlanding happened, myself.

If you are trying to tell me i should accept the unsupported claims of the bible just because there are some wacky conspiracy theorists on the earth, then i suggest you think again.

no, im simply pointing out that your contention that the moonalnding is universally accepted and that Biblical events are false, is not true.

Yeah every ONE of which can be rejected…

I will let matt explain why…

youtube.com/watch?v=aKauSITtnFA&feature=PlayList&p=D520872701484A48&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17

youtube.com/watch?v=gR-O2G3cngA&feature=response_watch

i dont mind posting a short video, or watching one, but 20 minutes of listening to people drone on is annoying.

so just spill it, why do you think that you can reject the Biblical events?

so far ive cut science out as a possibility. thats what most of this thread has been about

ive cut documentation and evidence out as a possible basis for rejection. because we have appropriate documentation and evidence.

so on what other grounds can you reject it? i cant think of another

 

[AlbertBall]

don’t backpedal now, your contention that no one questions the moon landing is obviously false. simply trying to make everyone that doesn’t agree with you either crazy or ignorant, isn’t a refutation. the polls showing 25% of russians and Britons have some doubts, don’t indicate that it is a symptom of some ignorance. or a lack of education.

Well it does come down to ignorance. or a lack of education.

no, I’m simply pointing out that your contention that the moon landing is universally accepted and that Biblical events are false, is not true.

It is universally accepted among the educated.

i don’t mind posting a short video, or watching one, but 20 minutes of listening to people drone on is annoying.

so just spill it, why do you think that you can reject the Biblical events?

so far Ive cut science out as a possibility. thats what most of this thread has been about

Ive cut documentation and evidence out as a possible basis for rejection. because we have appropriate documentation and evidence.

so on what other grounds can you reject it? i cant think of another

The first video explains it all, and its only ten Min’s long. No droning, just a clear explanation of why the bible cannot be presented as evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

You are overlooking the fact that Biblical exegesis is far more problematical and far more controversial than the historical context in which the birth of Jesus occurred. As I have pointed out in another post, the truth of the teaching of Jesus and the love expressed in His life and death are of far greater significance than any other physical event in the history of mankind - except His Resurrection. Consequently they constitute overwhelming evidence for the unique nature of His birth and are far more convincing evidence than any human achievement!

Could it be that your rejection of the teaching of Jesus and the love expressed in His life and death is due to wishful thinking? Oh, no! That is absolutely impossible… All your conclusions are determined by physical events and therefore not even due to thinking, let alone wishful!

 

[Image_of_God]

They are nothing like equally probable. The moon landings happened, this is a fact that no sane person on earth would deny. Bible claims like the virgin birth have to be taken on faith and faith alone, as there is not one single shred of supporting evidence. It is no more probable than any other myth. To try and claim it is equally as probable as a proven fact is absurd to the highest order.

It is absurd according to your opinion. But that doesn’t make it objectively so. If you stepped outside of the box of your scientific realism, you would really see things as we are describing them to you.

You do realise that being there is utterly irrelevant?

I assure you it does. Your line of argument goes something like this: I have never seen a virgin birth, therefore it could never happen. You dismiss that it could ever happen because you have never seen it and even if someone told you today that they witnessed a virgin birth, you would dismiss it. But the fact that you dismiss it does not prove the event false. It is simply a belief.

The strange thing in all this is that you completely accept various other things that you have never seen in your life simply because you trust the witnesses. Being there is very relevant.

Oh and it not up to me to disprove you claim, it is up to you to verify your claim, the burden of proof is on you.

No, the burden of proof is not on me. Not once have I claimed I believed that the miracles of Jesus were based on any concrete evidence. I have consistently stated that it was by faith in the eyewitnesses and their accounts that I believe in them. On the other hand, you have claimed to know for certain that other historical events such as the War of 1812, for example, are more true than other historical events. Both Warpspeedpetey and I have continually reminded both you and R Daneel that we believe in certain historical events based on whether we find the accounts of them trustworthy or not. But you have persisted to claim otherwise, making charges that someone who does not believe tin this or that event is absurd. What is the firm foundation of your charge? What concrete evidence can you provide that validate it? (Other than claims of scientific verifiability, which obviously cannot be true).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well it does come down to ignorance. or a lack of education. It is universally accepted among the educated.

no it doesnt some of those people have PhDs’

The first video explains it all, and its only ten Min’s long. No droning, just a clear explanation of why the bible cannot be presented as evidence.

ok. these kids were a complete waste of time for me. ive made and heard all that before, in fact i think maybe you or r daneel have made the sam claims, its hard to tell because every atheist makes these claims.

this is why i like short and to the point.

now, if it did not occur to you that we have already discussed this i will readress these yet again

time.

1:30 - they make the verification/falsification claim.

i have already shown that to be false, because it self refutes.

funny, but the former atheist on the phone has 1 whole year of school. he think that makes him familiar with science.

2:50 - former atheist submits Gospels as evidence.

4:45 - bald guy asserts we dont know who wrote the Gospels.

yes we do. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. there is no proof that the oral tradition is wrong.

5:30 - bald guy asserts Gospels are hearsay because they are written after Christ

of course, all stories are written after they happen. it would be very surprising if they werent. that doesnt make them hearsay.

7:30 - bald guy again asserts that the Gospels are hearsay.

no they werent, they were eyewitness accounts. still no proof the oral tradition is wrong.

these kids just didnt say anything new.

 

[AlbertBall]

It is absurd according to your opinion. But that doesn’t make it objectively so. If you stepped outside of the box of your scientific realism, you would really see things as we are describing them to you.

The box i live in is called reality,

I assure you it does. Your line of argument goes something like this: I have never seen a virgin birth, therefore it could never happen. You dismiss that it could ever happen because you have never seen it and even if someone told you today that they witnessed a virgin birth, you would dismiss it. But the fact that you dismiss it does not prove the event false. It is simply a belief.

No it is NOTHING LIKE THAT. How can you quote me as saying “You do realise that being there is utterly irrelevant?” then claim i believe that “I have never seen a virgin birth, therefore it could never happen.”. Honestly!

My line of reasoning goes like this. You have made a claim, you cannot substantiate your claim, there no reason to accept your claim, therefore i reject your claim as UNPROVEN!

The strange thing in all this is that you completely accept various other things that you have never seen in your life simply because you trust the witnesses. Being there is very relevant.

Being there is irrelevant. I believe that stars are the result of fusion, tell me what eye witness accounts am i trusting for that?

No, the burden of proof is not on me. Not once have I claimed I believed that the miracles of Jesus were based on any concrete evidence. I have consistently stated that it was by faith in the eyewitnesses and their accounts that I believe in them.

Good, then we agree. On the other hand i do not accept the moon landing because of eye witness accounts, i accept them due to the mountains of evidence that substantiate these accounts. That is ALL i have been saying from the start, i am glad we know agree.

The next problem you have is there is not one eye witness account in the bible, it is stories about hearsay. Which were VOTED into the bible. Yeah some of the stories, about stories, that you claim are the word of go may well have scraped into the bible by a single vote. THINK ABOUT IT! This is mans work, nothing to do with a god.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My line of reasoning goes like this. You have made a claim, you cannot substantiate your claim, there no reason to accept your claim, therefore i reject your claim as UNPROVEN!

 

[Image_of_God]

The box i live in is called reality

In a box called subjective reality, where you can prove things as true with the sound of your voice and anyone who opposes this is considered absurd.

No it is NOTHING LIKE THAT. How can you quote me as saying “You do realise that being there is utterly irrelevant?” then claim i believe that “I have never seen a virgin birth, therefore it could never happen.”. Honestly!

You obviously believe that. It is implied in your responses. Otherwise, how could you believe that something must be verifiable in order to be true? You can’t verify anything without first seeing it. Therefore, something that cannot be seen, cannot be true…at least following your ideas.

My line of reasoning goes like this. You have made a claim, you cannot substantiate your claim, there no reason to accept your claim, therefore i reject your claim as UNPROVEN!

The same goes for you. You claim that certain historical events did happen and others didn’t. At the same time you reject absolute certainty. You have also rejected the idea that things are believed to be more likely true based on what we find reasonable and credible. So, how, I ask again, do you prove one event over the other?

Being there is irrelevant. I believe that stars are the result of fusion, tell me what eye witness accounts am i trusting for that?

You believe because you haven’t seen it for yourself. That is opposed to knowing for sure if you had seen it for yourself (certain ideologies would argue against this).

Good, then we agree. On the other hand i do not accept the moon landing because of eye witness accounts, i accept them due to the mountains of evidence that substantiate these accounts. That is ALL i have been saying from the start, i am glad we know agree.

What concrete evidence is this?

The next problem you have is there is not one eye witness account in the bible, it is stories about hearsay. Which were VOTED into the bible. Yeah some of the stories, about stories, that you claim are the word of go may well have scraped into the bible by a single vote. THINK ABOUT IT! This is mans work, nothing to do with a god.

Truly?

Luke 1:1-2
“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us;
According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word:”

How do you separate hearsay from the words of an eyewitness anyway?

If you think that the various books of the Bible were voted into it, you have a deep misunderstanding about how the process went.

 

[AlbertBall]

no it doesn’t some of those people have PhDs’

The term is fringe scientist, google it.

ok. these kids were a complete waste of time for me. Ive made and heard all that before, in fact i think maybe you or r daneel have made the sam claims, its hard to tell because every atheist makes these claims.

LOL sure, if YOU say so.

this is why i like short and to the point.

Short and to the point? ITS TEN MIN’S! ‘God’ help you if you ever had to do some real research!

i have already shown that to be false, because it self refutes.

LOL no you have not, you reference a wiki page which i really think you should go and re-read! For it was referring to the STATEMENT, NOT the actual method.

The statement “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically”, is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as it cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true”.

funny, but the former atheist on the phone has 1 whole year of school. he think that makes him familiar with science.

I know, but its amazing how disillusioned some people are.

yes we do. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. there is no proof that the oral tradition is wrong.

I think you might want to look into that again. Even christian scholars universally accept that the authors are unknown.

of course, all stories are written after they happen. it would be very surprising if they weren’t. that doesn’t make them hearsay.

Its hearsay, plain and simple. Not eye witness.

 

[AlbertBall]

double standard. you believe the evidence for the moonlanding substatiates that event, but you deny that the evidence for the Biblical events substatiates those events.

Because as i have explained to you countless times the evidence that substantiates these two events is NOT the SAME! :banghead: I don’t know whether to laugh of cry :bighanky:

 

[AlbertBall]

In a box called subjective reality, where you can prove things as true with the sound of your voice and anyone who opposes this is considered absurd.

Not at all, where i only accept things which can be substantiated.

You obviously believe that. It is implied in your responses. Otherwise, how could you believe that something must be verifiable in order to be true? You can’t verify anything without first seeing it. Therefore, something that cannot be seen, cannot be true…at least following your ideas.

“You can’t verify anything without first seeing it.” I am afraid this is just incorrect. Ok lets use a murder as an example. Some kills someone, nobody saw it. However we find the accused’s DNA at the scence, we find the murder weapon in this house, we find the victims DNA in the trunk of the accused’s car. We find the victims body, we wind the accused’s car tracks next to the site, we find CCTV evidence that shows the accused’s car in that area near the time.

Did anyone witness the murder? NO. Has the murderer been verifed beyond any reasonable doubt? YES!

In fact the WHOLE point of science is to verify that which we DID NOT OBSERVE!

The same goes for you. You claim that certain historical events did happen and others didn’t. At the same time you reject absolute certainty. You have also rejected the idea that things are believed to be more likely true based on what we find reasonable and credible. So, how, I ask again, do you prove one event over the other?

Sorry but i am red up repeating myself, go re read the thread i have explained this COUNTLESS times.

You believe because you haven’t seen it for yourself. That is opposed to knowing for sure if you had seen it for yourself (certain ideologies would argue against this).

Nope seeing is beleiving, seeing is NOT KNOWING!

If you think that the various books of the Bible were voted into it, you have a deep misunderstanding about how the process went.

“Once the Nicea Council meeting was underway Constantine demanded that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. Constantine commanded them to create a “creed” doctrine that all of Christianity would follow and obey, a doctrine that would be called the “Nicene Creed,” upheld by the Church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position for the church. The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church. However, the Council of Nicea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines.”

 

[R_Daneel]

Could it be that your rejection of the teaching of Jesus and the love expressed in His life and death is due to wishful thinking?

Actually, it could be. As I said many times so far, I am willing to accept your viw, if and only if you present actual, cinvincing evidence - not simply reiterate your wishful thinking. So, come on up, and present yout argument. Where is the beef?

 

[Leela]

Hi All,

I think people generally tell the truth and I generally believe the stories they tell me. The issue isn’t about proving people wrong. The issue is about what we do when someone tells us something that contradicts our views of how things are and how things work. When we are faced with a claim that is fairly consistent with what we usually experience or what we already believe to be true, we don’t require much evidence in order to believe it. The more a claim contradicts our ordinary experience, the more evidence we desire and the higher the standard of what is to be admitted as evidence.

If you were told that some Indian guru had learned to levitate while meditating, you would probably want a lot more evidence than you would if you were told by a neighbor that some kids opened a lemonade stand around the corner. If a neighbor said that to me, I’d believe her without question. But being told by the most reliable modern day eye-witness I could think of would probably not even be enough in the case of the guru. I probably wouldn’t believe it if I saw it myself.

I bet you would also suspect that it was some sort of trick, and certainly two thousand year old accounts of such a feat witnessed and passed down orally (by people who were pre-scientific and didn’t have good explanations for pretty much anything) and later written down and copied from copies and translated and copied again and lost and found and copied and translated again would be completely unconvincing to you. Or maybe not. For some reason, when such accounts of miracles are set within this context they seem to become more rather than less compelling to people than modern day reports of miracles like those attested to by millions of people personally witnessing the “living god” Sai Baba in Southern India. I can’t understand why.

Literally millions of people will attest to the fact that Sai Baba was born of a virgin. Do you believe it? If not, why not? If not, you already know why many of us don’t believe the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Hearing that millions of people right now (not two thousand years ago) believe that Sai Baba is a living God who can do all the usual miracles attributed to such walking dieties and prophets such as raising the dead, being born of a virgin, levitate, making objects appear out of thin air, etc. will probably not even motivate you to look into it. Despite the millions of eye-witnesses, you know that Sai Baba can’t do these things.

 

[Leela]

Like those who attest to the miracles of Sai Baba, the ancient people telling the stories of Jesus may very well have believed them. That doesn’t necesarily mean that we should believe the people telling the stories. We don’t know what sort of evidence their belief was based on. If there were eye witnesses and not just passing on and perhaps embelling stories that they heard, do they even understand what they were seeing? Wouldn’t people thousands of years ago before we had good explanations of pretty much anything at all be more likely to be persuaded by evidence that shouldn’t and wouldn’t convince educated people today? I think so.

Plus, we know for a fact that Christian scribes have taken it upon them selves to ammend the texts based on the hundreds of variant manuscripts that we have. We know for a fact that Christians made stuff up, and who knows how far back it goes? The consensus among Biblical scholars is that what may be the most famous story of all, the one about the woman caught in adultry, is thought to have not been orginal to the gospel of John and added in later manuscripts since it is not included in the oldest and best manuscripts. Consider also the snake charming bit ammended to the end of the Gospel of Mark.

We also know that there are lots of other written accounts (gospels) that did not make it into the Bible either because they were not consistent with other gospels or not consistent with the dominant theology when the gospels were canonized. Clearly some people made stuff up or got it wrong in some other way in non-canonical gospels since these conflicting accounts can’t all be true. How do you then know that the canonical gospels don’t include things that were gotten wrong or made up?

People frequently wonder, what do they have to gain from making such stories up? You see that “what do they have to gain from making it up?” argument a lot when people believe stories about other people’s encounters with UFOs, bigfoot, etc. Who knows? Some people clearly just want to have a story to tell or be part of the story, and some people have other reasons that we just don’t know about. Not being able to fathom why people 2000 years ago would make up, add to, or exaggerate a story and having no way to find out doesn’t mean that they didn’t do so and doesn’t make the story any more believeable for me.

We know for a fact that people do make up, exaggerate, and add to stories, and that seems to me to be a far more plausible explanation than believing that the events described really did happen. I’m not suggesting that such stories get made up out of whole cloth. It just that we know how such legends grow and may later have little resemblence to the facts and no specific single author to point to as having invented the tale.

 

[Leela]

One argument I’ve heard for the veracity of the gospels is the depiction of Jesus as despairing in death. If someone were to make up the story, wouldn’t we see a Jesus dieing with valor? Well Jesus who is being crucified in Mark is a very despairing Jesus indeed (why have you forsaken me?), but the Jesus in Luke is completely in control–“Father forgive them, they know not what they do,” “Truly today you will be with me in Paradise,” and, most importantly, not the agonized “Why have you forsaken me?,” but instead “Into your hands I commend my spirit.” These are two very different Jesuses. By some reasoning we should reject the account in the gospel of Luke in favor of that of the gospel of Mark. But if you do that, then you have to admit that at least parts of the gospels are probably made up, and the parts that we are most likely to doubt are the ones that are least consistent with our personal experience based on such reasoning.

So I doubt stories of people being rasied from the dead or being born of virgins because that is not something that is possible in my experience. In order to believe such claims, I would need much more substantial evidence to change my mind than I would need to be convinced of some claim that is more consistent with my experience.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believable. I don’t think the alternative to “lunatic, liar, or lord” is just someone or a specific group of people conspiring to invent a tale. Stories like this evolve, which is why they so often contain inconsistencies and don’t read like stories written by a single author with a single vision. The Old Testament has lots of examples. Unless you are already a believer in the resurrection, there are lots of scenarios that seem more plausible than a dead man who is
really God coming back to life after three days or he truth of the claim about virgin birth.

And that is the real question. The question is not, why would they make it up? or can yo prove that they were wrong? (This idea of “proof” that motivated this whole thread is what Bernard Williams called the “superpower theory of defense”–the notion that you have adequately defended your position “only if you can annihilate the other side.” It is also reminiscent of Robert Nozick’s poking fun at the philosopher’s hope for “arguments so powerful they set up reverberations in the brain: if the person refuses to accept the conclusion, he dies.” Arguments simply don’t have the power to do that.) The question for historians and the rest of us when presented with the available evidence for such a claim as the virgin birth is: is there some other explanation that is more likely than that these events really happened in history?

To return to the “moon landing” issue. My belief that it really happened is formed by weighing the plausibility of alternative “conspiracy theory” explanations for the available evidence against the plausibility of actually sending a man to the moon. Likewise, no matter how implausible it may seem for a given alternative explanation of, say, an empty tomb or the oral tradition of the virgin birth, those alternative explanations only have to stand up to the plausibility of a human being rised from the dead or being born of a virgin And it is very easy to come up with more plausible scenarios that are consistent with the available evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, it could be. As I said many times so far, I am willing to accept your viw, if and only if you present actual, cinvincing evidence - not simply reiterate your wishful thinking. So, come on up, and present yout argument. Where is the beef?

1. Do agree that it is a fact that there is an immense amount of unnecessary suffering and bloodshed caused by the ignorance, selfishness, greed and lust for power on the part of human beings?
2. Do you agree that it is a fact that the only solution is to liberate them from those vices?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The term is fringe scientist, google it.

this is pretty much black and white, cant you even admit that you were wrong about no educated people doubting the moonlanding? its not like there is any room for interpretation. they are educated.

LOL no you have not, you reference a wiki page which i really think you should go and re-read! For it was referring to the STATEMENT, NOT the actual method.

The statement “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically”, is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as it cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true”.

the statements are what we are talking about. specifically when someone says that “claim X is true/not true, proven/not proven because it is not or cannot be verified”

I know, but its amazing how disillusioned some people are.

hey! we agree on something.

I think you might want to look into that again. Even christian scholars universally accept that the authors are unknown.

no they dont. thats not to say there is no question, but there is no evidence that disproves the oral tradition of authorship. it all amounts to dueling scholars.

Its hearsay, plain and simple. Not eye witness.

no they arent. the closest is St. Luke, who admits up front to being contemporary historian with access to all the witnesses.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because as i have explained to you countless times the evidence that substantiates these two events is NOT the SAME! :banghead: I don’t know whether to laugh of cry :bighanky:

and we have explained countless times that it is.

 

[AlbertBall]

and we have explained countless times that it is.

Yep and when you demonstrate that you understand what constitutes evidence i might take you seriously.

 

[AlbertBall]

the statements are what we are talking about. specifically when someone says that “claim X is true/not true, proven/not proven because it is not or cannot be verified”

But here is what you seem to be missing, they are not saying that empirical evidence is self refuting, but the STATEMENT is self refuting. LIke the moon landings there is a BIG difference!