FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-20-2001, 09:18 PM   #91
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Then the "conversation" is over. And you once again demonstrating you are a coward who refuses to discuss the historical evidence.

And, you won't even defend your own positive assertions, which seems to be the lynchpin of your obstinance. That the scientific method is the only way to get "any degree" of certainty about anything. So I ask again:

"And I think you are confusing the scientific method with the philosphical underpinnings of that method. Perhaps if you explained precisely what you mean by the scientific method, and then demonstrated how, step by step, it proves that it is the only way to have "any degree" of certainty about anything, you could be more persuasive."

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 20, 2001).]
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:21 PM   #92
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
It is the first post in the thread. Jesus, Miracle Worker. All you have to do is read the first post.
Again, feel free to read the entire thread, but all you need to do is read the first post.
</font>
I read it. It's pathetic. Between SingleDad and turtonm, I think you had your post handed back to you, slightly charred.

They also called you on your seriously oversold argument from authority - I see you also tried it out over there as well. Yawn.

The point about cohesiveness as a criterion -the flaw in it was well put by SingleDad. It's basically special pleading, subjective gut feeling (i.e.,bullshit), masquerading as "proof".

And what SingleDad said about the criterion of embarrassment also brought back some memories:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I find the argument from embarassement entirely unconvincing. It's non-falsifiable and impossible to distinguish between changing standards of value, intentional fabrication, error and stupidity.
</font>
Gee; wonder who said that before.

SingleDad used more accurate phraseology, but this is exactly why it's flawed.

And I note that you also said:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
It holds that other sayings or actions of Jesus that fit in well with the preliminary historical material amassed has a good chance of being historical.
</font>

which is precisely what I indicated earlier was the flaw in the dissimiliarity criterion:


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Dissimiliarity - as Bob K points out, is likewise of questionable use. If the text refers to an event that would be harmonious with the historical and social backdrop of ancient Palestine, then the skeptic is asked to accept it for precisely those reasons. On the other hand, if the event in question is dissimilar to what was expected, then the skeptic is told that "it couldn't possibly be made up, so it has to be true."

It seems that no matter what the evidence, the theist manages to create a "win" out of it.
</font>

 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:23 PM   #93
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Then the "conversation" is over.
</font>

Fine. I win. Science triumphs superstition and blind faith. May it ever be so.
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:28 PM   #94
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:

Fine. I win. Science triumphs superstition and blind faith. May it ever be so.
</font>
Really? When you left your core thesis unsupported? Namely that the scientific method itself proves that it is the only way to have "any degree" of certainty about anything?

Again:

"And I think you are confusing the scientific method with the philosphical underpinnings of that method. Perhaps if you explained precisely what you mean by the scientific method, and then demonstrated how, step by step, it proves that it is the only way to have "any degree" of certainty about anything, you could be more persuasive."
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:36 PM   #95
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Really? When you left your core thesis unsupported?
</font>
It is not the goal of science to answer every uneducated idiot. Especially when those idiots can run around like arsonists, creating little fires of their own and never responding to them. Science does not feel the need to evangelize the deliberately blind; there are better uses of time and resources.

So I ask you again: do you want to go back and give me a proper argument for the resurrection of Christ? One where both the premise and the conclusion are sound, and not filled with your lame I.O.U. instead of proof?

Or are you going to duck out and hide again, because you know that you cannot do so?
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:39 PM   #96
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"And I think you are confusing the scientific method with the philosphical underpinnings of that method. Perhaps if you explained precisely what you mean by the scientific method, and then demonstrated how, step by step, it proves that it is the only way to have "any degree" of certainty about anything, you could be more persuasive."

It would be simpler for you if you just admitted that the scientific method cannot prove your assertion.

 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:48 PM   #97
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So, in addition to, or as categories of, historical-critical scholarship, we now find textual criticism, literary criticism, source criticism, and probably a number of other criticisms that were not listed.

What are the standards for --

Textual criticism?

Literary critisism?

Source criticism?

Any other criticism(s) not previously listed?
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:50 PM   #98
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The necessary prerequisite to historical evidence (#2 - that someone in history did an amazing deed) is to show that such deeds are even possible (#1).

If you can't clear #1, then your arguments about #2 are dead on arrival.

If there is a question as to the feasibility of your starting premise, then you need to clear that up first before moving on to your conclusion. And I think that everyone would agree that there is more than just a "minor question" as to your starting premise.

 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:53 PM   #99
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

When we are discussing proof, we need to ask/answer an important question: What is proof?

Proof is --

1. Physical Evidence: People/things/events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted and thus observed and measured directly or indirectly through the use of machines such as telescopes/microscopes/audio amplifiers/etc., or who/which can be inferred by their effects upon natural/physical phenomena (people/things/events comprised of matter/energy and therefore exist in contrast to being the subject matter/content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.)

2. Eyewitness Reports: Testimonies by credible individuals corroborated by corroborating reports by credible corroborators.

3. Logical Arguments: Arguments in which premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified lead logically to conclusions which are true if the premises are true; wherein the premises must answer the begged question: Is this premise true?; wherein verification of the premises must by based upon physical evidence and/or eyewitness reports.

Any suggestions?
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:59 PM   #100
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob K:
When we are discussing proof, we need to ask/answer an important question: What is proof?

Proof is --

1. Physical Evidence: People/things/events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted and thus observed and measured directly or indirectly through the use of machines such as telescopes/microscopes/audio amplifiers/etc., or who/which can be inferred by their effects upon natural/physical phenomena (people/things/events comprised of matter/energy and therefore exist in contrast to being the subject matter/content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.)

2. Eyewitness Reports: Testimonies by credible individuals corroborated by corroborating reports by credible corroborators.

3. Logical Arguments: Arguments in which premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified lead logically to conclusions which are true if the premises are true; wherein the premises must answer the begged question: Is this premise true?; wherein verification of the premises must by based upon physical evidence and/or eyewitness reports.

Any suggestions?
</font>
A very good list. Devastating to the theist position, I might add.

One other item that is normally counted as evidence or proof (at least in a court of law) are original written documents.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.