On the Necessity of Proving Things

[AlbertBall]

please tell me how you think that being or not being testable or repeatable disproves the claim that an event occured?

Did you even read what i said? I SAID “Further more **our modern society **is built around the fact they you CAN tell whether a claim is true or false because you understand it and its repeatable AND testable.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is another nonsense claim.

it makes perfect sense to a great many people.

The process does not go both ways.

why not? because you say so?

An advanced technology may seem “miraculous” to someone uneducated,

a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishible from magic regardless of education. the key words being “sufficiently advanced”.

imagine any phenomenon that you would call ‘magical’. now, since we dont believe in magic, what does that leave? some technology or process that we dont understand.

i simply dont believe in magic. there is a rational explanation for everything.

but that does not mean that any “miracle” will become an application of a higher technology. You have no proof for that - and you cannot have any, since that would imply omniscience.

since i dont believe in magic and i do believe everything has a rational explanation, what else could it be?

of course you will say that it is a lie, or a fake. which will bring us back to the idea that the Apostles and Martyrs all chose to suffer for decades as slaves, be stoned, beaten, driven from to town to town, imprisoned, etc, only to be tortured to death for something they knew to be a lie.

that is ridiculous. no one does that, much less the tens of thousands martyred in the persecutions of the early Church. all because they either witnessed Christs or the Apostles miracles, or knew someone who did.

Maybe you claim even that, who knows? What you keep saying is just another example of a confused mind. And, no it is not fustrating to see that you believe that you “won” an argument. It is merely amusing.

ive been throwing the philosophy of science at you for days. nothing confusing about it to me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have to admit, the level of stupidity needed to claim the evidence for the bible claims is the same as the evidence for the moon landings actually gives me a sort head when think about it. I honestly think he has to be trolling, i fail to see how anyone can be that uneducated.

insults dont cover your inability to support your arguments by anything more than repetition.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Did you even read what i said? I SAID “Further more **our modern society **is built around the fact they you CAN tell whether a claim is true or false because you understand it and its repeatable AND testable.”

and im asking you to demonstrate how that is so in relation to the Biblical claims. im asking you to prove your assertion.

so, how does being repeatable and testable show whether a claim that an event occurred is true or false?

 

[AlbertBall]

and im asking you to demonstrate how that is so in relation to the Biblical claims. im asking you to prove your assertion.

so, how does being repeatable and testable show whether a claim that an event occurred is true or false?

When have i ever said that? Honestly you are all over the place.

 

[AlbertBall]

why not? because you say so?

This is so blatantly obvious its painful to see you ask such a question.

Do you really believe that we should accepted every reported miracle and put it down to advantaged technology that we don’t yet understand? Like REALLY, you really think that???

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When have i ever said that? Honestly you are all over the place.

dont backpedal, the claims we are talking about are the Biblical claims.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/Backpedal.jpg

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is so blatantly obvious its painful to see you ask such a question.

how can it be painful to ask someone to support an assertion, we all ask eachother to do that all the time

Do you really believe that we should accepted every reported miracle and put it down to advantaged technology that we don’t yet understand? Like REALLY, you really think that???

of course not. ive never said that.

i am saying that you cannot reject the Biblical events on the basis that they dont comport with our current understanding of science.

**if it can be explained in a more parsimonious manner, then do so. **

that said, ive been posting that link for weeks, and this is the first time you have adressed it, its like you never understood what it meant, or simply didnt read it.

whhats up with that?

 

[AlbertBall]

how can it be painful to ask someone to support an assertion, we all ask eachother to do that all the time

of course not. ive never said that.

i am saying that you cannot reject the Biblical events on the basis that they dont comport with our current understanding of science.

**if it can be explained in a more parsimonious manner, then do so. **

that said, ive been posting that link for weeks, and this is the first time you have adressed it, its like you never understood what it meant, or simply didnt read it.

whhats up with that?

Well unlike you i like to address the actual topic.

 

[Image_of_God]

As usual, you don’t understand the difference between the two “legs” of accepting a historical claim. First, it is necessary that the event itself - regardless of when it was or is supposed to happen - be scientifically credible. Second, that the witness should have credibility.

How do you determine that the people who wrote the books of the Bible are incredible? Nothing other than by your opinion and belief.

The credibility of a thing is determined by what a person holds to be reasonable. There is simply no avoiding that, though you might try. Credibility, although a good measure of the actuality of a thing, is none the less imperfect. Simply because a thing is incredible, does not make it false.

You, being influenced by scientific realism, are going to have a different idea of what is credible that we Christians will. You have no absolute certainty that what we find credible is wrong. You can only hope that it is. The same vice versa. This is the reality of things.

Using you diner scenario, let’s consider two claims.

In the first one, the claim is that someone heard from someone else that in the diner he saw 2 zombies and 3 space aliens, who arrived on unicorns, and were consuming manna which fell from heaven. When it came to paying time, they produced a sparkling diamond weighing 100 pounds and then disappeared into thin air.

In the second one someone asserts that he saw the Prime Minister eating steak in that diner. He also provides 20 journalists, who made video footage of the event, which was also presented on live TV the night before.

What you are doing here is appealing to our reason. You are not presuming that we trust either of these scenario’s based on any concrete evidence. Unless I was there with the Prime Minister, there is no (true) certainty that he did what you said he did. To be extremely bizarre and beg the question, it could have been a very good imitator. I know I am being unreasonable, but that is proving my point. It would be unreasonable not to believe that he was there. For the former claim, we have no absolute certainty that that person did not see what he claimed however bizarre (unreasonable?). But we do *believe * that he didn’t see such and such because our reason tells us that it probably wasn’t likely.

According to your malformed arguments, the two events have equal credibility. Neither of them can be verified directly, in both we have to rely on second hand testimony. You keep saying that we have no justification in accepting the second claim, and discarding the first one. I advise you to seek professional help.

Warpspeedpetey doesn’t need any professional help. He is only being more objective than you are. He probably isn’t saying that the two events have equal credibility, so much as he is saying that they have equal probability, at least more objectively speaking. Credibility is entirely subjective, unless you are God. The fact is that if you do not have concrete proof of an event or you are not present for a specific event, then it is verified by nothing more than reason. And belief is held based on this firm foundation of reason.

Many things are taken for granted to be true, but only because they are believed to be reasonably so. To argue otherwise is simply foolish. If you can, prove to me why the War of 1812 is more true than the Feeding of the Five Thousand by Jesus without resorting to claims of scientific credibility, which are nothing more than claims.

 

[Image_of_God]

This is so blatantly obvious its painful to see you ask such a question.

Do you really believe that we should accepted every reported miracle and put it down to advantaged technology that we don’t yet understand? Like REALLY, you really think that???

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj51/crys77/polar-bear-face-palm_thumbnail1.jpg

You are certainly correct. We should not believe every reported miracle. No wonder the Church investigates many claims of apparitions. But why? Let me give you a hint: it has nothing to do with empirical evidence. You weren’t there. So what can do, but make certain assumptions that such-and-such did not occur based on what “evidence” you do have?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well unlike you i like to address the actual topic.

thats not an answer.

do you have a more parsimonious answer?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey doesn’t need any professional help. He is only being more objective than you are.

yup

He probably isn’t saying that the two events have equal credibility, so much as he is saying that they have equal probability, at least more objectively speaking. Credibility is entirely subjective, unless you are God.

yup.

The fact is that if you do not have concrete proof of an event or you are not present for a specific event, then it is verified by nothing more than reason. And belief is held based on this firm foundation of reason.

yup

Many things are taken for granted to be true, but only because they are believed to be reasonably so. To argue otherwise is simply foolish.

yup

If you can, prove to me why the War of 1812 is more true than the Feeding of the Five Thousand by Jesus without resorting to claims of scientific credibility, which are nothing more than claims.

they cant. they dont want to admit that scientific credibility has no bearing on whether an event happened or even if it is possible.

 

[AlbertBall]

You weren’t there. So what can do, but make certain assumptions that such-and-such did not occur based on what “evidence” you do have?

You do realise that being there is utterly irrelevant?

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.

 

[AlbertBall]

Warpspeedpetey doesn’t need any professional help. He is only being more objective than you are. He probably isn’t saying that the two events have equal credibility, so much as he is saying that they have equal probability, at least more objectively speaking.

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.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They are nothing like equally probable. The moon landings happened, this is a fact that no sane person on earth would deny.

here are a whole lot of people who deny the moonlanding happened. you keep trying to act as though it is unquestioned, but that is not true. a lot of people question it.

there is a ton of videos on youtube, and you can check out these links.

moonhoax.us/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
batesmotel.8m.com/

Public opinion
See also: Apollo hoax in popular culture
There are subcultures worldwide which advocate the belief that the Moon landings were faked. James Oberg of ABC News stated that claims made that the moon landings were faked are actively taught in Cuban schools and wherever Cuban teachers are sent.[3][4] A 1999 Gallup poll found that **6% of the American public doubted that the Moon landings had occurred **and that 5% had no opinion on the subject,[5][6][7][8] which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[5] Officials of Fox television stated that such skepticism increased to about 20% after the February 15, 2001 airing of that network’s TV show entitled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Seen by approximately 15 million viewers,[6] the 2001 Fox special is viewed as having promoted the hoax claims.[9][10]

A 2000 poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% do not believe that American astronauts have been on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups.[11] In 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon.[12] Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened.

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.

yes there is its documented in several books of the Bible.

 

[AlbertBall]

here are a whole lot of people who deny the moonlanding happened. you keep trying to act as though it is unquestioned, but that is not true. a lot of people question it.

there is a ton of videos on youtube, and you can check out these links.

moonhoax.us/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
batesmotel.8m.com/

Public opinion
See also: Apollo hoax in popular culture
There are subcultures worldwide which advocate the belief that the Moon landings were faked. James Oberg of ABC News stated that claims made that the moon landings were faked are actively taught in Cuban schools and wherever Cuban teachers are sent.[3][4] A 1999 Gallup poll found that **6% of the American public doubted that the Moon landings had occurred **and that 5% had no opinion on the subject,[5][6][7][8] which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[5] Officials of Fox television stated that such skepticism increased to about 20% after the February 15, 2001 airing of that network’s TV show entitled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Seen by approximately 15 million viewers,[6] the 2001 Fox special is viewed as having promoted the hoax claims.[9][10]

A 2000 poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% do not believe that American astronauts have been on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups.[11] In 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon.[12] Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened.

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.

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

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.

yes there is its documented in several books of the Bible.

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

 

[R_Daneel]

I would really like to see the list of all those people who examined Mary’s hymen both before and after the birth of Jesus took place. If I am not mistaken it is a Catholic dogma that Mary stayed a “virgo intacta” during her whole life. Were they the 12 apostles, who became Jesus’s companions even before he was born? That would be a “miracle”! Or who were they? Doctors? Mid-wives?

Better read the following site:

jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

A short excerpt:
The word **almah **is rare—usually translated as “maiden” it appears only ten times in the Hebrew Scriptures, six(1) of these in the plural and four(2) in the singular. (3) Some say the word **almah **is merely the feminine of elem, or “young man.”(4)

In the few verses where **almah **appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although **almah **does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.” It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste.

The prophet could have chosen a different word had he wanted to describe Immanuel’s mother as a virgin. **Betulah **is a more common way to refer to a woman who has never been with a man (both in biblical and modern Hebrew).

(1) Psalm 9:1, 46:1, 68:26; Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8; 1 Chronicles 15:20.
(2) Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Isaiah 7:14; Proverbs 30:19.
(3) For a thorough study of these passages, see Young, Edward J., The Immanuel Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14-16 (Second Article). The Westminster Theological Journal, 16:23-50 (November 1953), p. 171-177.
(4) LaSor, William Sanford, n.d., Isaiah 7:14—“Young Woman” or “Virgin,” Unpublished manuscript, Fuller Theological Seminary, p. 5-6.

But, I guess, the claimants that who assert that Mary’s perpetural vriginity is supported by proper evidence will stay unimpressed.

 

[tonyrey]

I would really like to see the list of all those people who examined Mary’s hymen both before and after the birth of Jesus took place. If I am not mistaken it is a Catholic dogma that Mary stayed a “virgo intacta” during her whole life. Were they the 12 apostles, who became Jesus’s companions even before he was born? That would be a “miracle”! Or who were they? Doctors? Mid-wives?

Better read the following site:

jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

A short excerpt:
The word **almah **is rare—usually translated as “maiden” it appears only ten times in the Hebrew Scriptures, six(1) of these in the plural and four(2) in the singular. (3) Some say the word **almah **is merely the feminine of elem, or “young man.”(4)

In the few verses where **almah **appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although **almah **does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.” It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste.

The prophet could have chosen a different word had he wanted to describe Immanuel’s mother as a virgin. **Betulah **is a more common way to refer to a woman who has never been with a man (both in biblical and modern Hebrew).

(1) Psalm 9:1, 46:1, 68:26; Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8; 1 Chronicles 15:20.
(2) Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Isaiah 7:14; Proverbs 30:19.
(3) For a thorough study of these passages, see Young, Edward J., The Immanuel Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14-16 (Second Article). The Westminster Theological Journal, 16:23-50 (November 1953), p. 171-177.
(4) LaSor, William Sanford, n.d., Isaiah 7:14—“Young Woman” or “Virgin,” Unpublished manuscript, Fuller Theological Seminary, p. 5-6.

But, I guess, the claimants that who assert that Mary’s perpetural vriginity is supported by proper evidence will stay unimpressed.

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!

 

[R_Daneel]

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!

One piece of wishful thinking does NOT lend credence to another one…