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, 07:14 PM   #71
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"Anyone who claims the resurrection occurred is doing exactly that. [claiming textual criticism trumps the scientific method]."

Which scientific method application decided that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Was it published by a biologists? A physicist? A chemist?

"2. Your second claim is nonsense. It is patently obvious that any argument that says "certainty of fact is only possible with the sicentific method" is an argument supported by the selfsame scientific method."

And you accused me of using a tautology. Okay. Prove it. Use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only means of producing certainty. And throw in some stuff on quantum mechanics while you are at it.
 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:14 PM   #72
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Me Again: The concern I have is that you seem to be implying that an area is "unknown" merely because there is no archeological discovery right on point. And I'm curious, which gaps and I filling in and papering over? Are you saying that applying the commonly accepted criteria of multiple attestation, coherence, dissimilarity, embarrassment, etc. is per se filling in the gaps?
</font>

Why don't you start by enumerating the items that you think we have strong forensic, archaeological, etc. support for. Tell me why you think they are supported. And then we will see if we have areas of agreement.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 21, 2001).]
 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:18 PM   #73
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"If they were based solely on a desire to avoid deterioration of evidence, THEN they would all be the same. Since evidence deteriorates at the same rate."

I never claimed they were based solely on deterioration of evidence. In fact, I said just the oppossite.

"However, statute of limitations is also based upon a desire to avoid clogging the court system with old claims, thus grinding the courts to a halt. And, also upon the legal principle that a claimant has to take an aggressive stance in standing up for his/her rights. If they have not filed within a certain time frame (or if the crime has not
been discovered within a given time frame) it is deemed that the matter was too trivial to bother with."

I agree with all of the above. But it is also based on the deterioration of evidence.

You almost brought yourself to admitting it earlier, but then decided to fudge the meaning of "usefulness."
 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:20 PM   #74
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
Quote:
Me Again: The concern I have is that you seem to be implying that an area is "unknown" merely because there is no archeological discovery right on point. And I'm curious, which gaps and I filling in and papering over? Are you saying that applying the commonly accepted criteria of multiple attestation, coherence, dissimilarity, embarrassment, etc. is per se filling in the gaps?
[w/quote]


Why don't you start by enumerating the items that you think we have strong forensic, archaeological, etc. support for. Tell me why you think they are supported. And then we will see if we have areas of agreement.
Quote:
</font>
You made the assertion. Can't you defend it?
 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:36 PM   #75
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"Anyone who claims the resurrection occurred is doing exactly that. [claiming textual criticism trumps the scientific method]."

Which scientific method application decided that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Was it published by a biologists? A physicist? A chemist?
</font>
Not just Jesus - ANYONE. NO ONE rises from the dead. NOBODY. It violates the law of entropy. It has never been observed before, there is no documented or scientifically observed case of it ever happening, in spite of many claims to the contrary even today.

So by Occam's Razor, it is far more likely that all such events were the product of imaginations, confused crowds, or deliberate fraud. And in no case did anyone rise from the dead. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. And the evidentiary bar for this claim is quite high - in keeping with the extraordinary nature of such a claim. Mere texts will not do.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"2. Your second claim is nonsense. It is patently obvious that any argument that says "certainty of fact is only possible with the sicentific method" is an argument supported by the selfsame scientific method."


And you accused me of using a tautology. Okay. Prove it. Use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only means of producing certainty.
</font>
This is the same proof as that for 2+2=4: proof by lack of contrary example. Show me another way of producing certainty of data, as defined by the scientific method. Note that I am not talking about certainty in the mathematical sense of proving a geometry theorem.


 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:41 PM   #76
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
You made the assertion. Can't you defend it?
</font>

I thought you might want constructive discussion, instead of constant tit-for-tat banter. I was wrong; fine.

But before I go defending this statement, you have some loose ends to work on yourself. And since you asserted first, you can also prove first.

You said:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I've stated that most of our archeological and papryi discoveries have been consistent with the New Testament.
</font>
Okay, so dazzle me. I'm waiting.


And, for extra credit:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I agree with you to the extent that you are saying that we cannot prove that Jesus performed miracles through historical inquiry beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't strongly indicate that he did.
</font>
Let's see the evidence that "strongly indicates that he did."

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 20, 2001).]
 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:47 PM   #77
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"Not just Jesus - ANYONE. NO ONE rises from the dead. NOBODY. It violates the law of entropy. It has never been observed before, there is no documented or scientifically observed case of it ever happening, in spite of many claims to the contrary even today."

How do you know it has never been observed before? Is that a conclusion arrived at by the scientific method?

"So by Occam's Razor, it is far more likely that all such events were the product of imaginations, confused crowds, or deliberate fraud. And in no case did anyone rise from the dead. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. And the evidentiary bar for this claim is quite high - in keeping with the extraordinary nature of such a claim. Mere texts will not do."

I wasn't aware that the scientific method have proven Occam's Razor. And that part about "in no case did anyone arise from the dead" sounds suspiciously conclusory. And what, precisely, does the scientific method say the "high" standard should be. Have you done the probability math?

"This is the same proof as that for 2+2=4: proof by lack of contrary example. Show me another way of producing certainty of data, as defined by the scientific method. Note that I am not talking about certainty in the mathematical sense of proving a geometry theorem."

I agree that 2 + 2 = 4, but isn't that just another tautology? And how does the scientific method prove that the scientific method is the only way to really know something?
 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:50 PM   #78
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
Let's see the evidence that "strongly indicates that he did."

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 20, 2001).]
</font>
I refer you to the Jesus, Miracle Worker thread. It is down there somewhere. It is, however, a work in progress. But it would be a good place to begin the discussion.
 
Old 03-20-2001, 07:55 PM   #79
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"I thought you might want constructive discussion, instead of constant tit-for-tat banter. I was wrong; fine.

But before I go defending this statement, you have some loose ends to work on yourself. And since you asserted first, you can also prove first."

Coward. Once again you fail to come through to defend one of your own assertions. It shouldn't be to hard, I was just asking for examples of something you accused me of doing.

I originally said: "What makes you think I am uncomfortable with our degree of "forensic" evidence?"

You then said: "The fact that you are trying to fill in the gaps and paper over the unknown areas."
 
Old 03-20-2001, 08:05 PM   #80
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Not just Jesus - ANYONE. NO ONE rises from the dead. NOBODY. It violates the law of entropy. It has never been observed before, there is no documented or scientifically observed case of it ever happening, in spite of many claims to the contrary even today."


How do you know it has never been observed before? Is that a conclusion arrived at by the scientific method?
</font>
The scientific method says that people do not rise from the dead, and that events do not violate the laws of entropy. Such things are impossible. Basic logic says that people do not observe, or participate in, impossible events. By definition.

If I say, "all crows are black", then it only takes one exception to prove me wrong. But if I say "there are no white crows at all", then the only way to be sure of that is to round up every single crow in the universe and verify that statement, one crow at a time.

I'm saying that all crows are black here (i.e., all dead people stay dead).

If you think it has been observed before, then provide the evidence. So if you think that there is a white crow out theer (i.e, someone who rose), then by all means - get the proof and fetch it for us.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"So by Occam's Razor, it is far more likely that all such events were the product of imaginations, confused crowds, or deliberate fraud. And in no case did anyone rise from the dead. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. And the evidentiary bar for this claim is quite high - in keeping with the extraordinary nature of such a claim. Mere texts will not do."

I wasn't aware that the scientific method have proven Occam's Razor. And that part about "in no case did anyone arise from the dead" sounds suspiciously conclusory.

See the above.

Quote:
And what, precisely, does the scientific method say the "high" standard should be. Have you done the probability math?
</font>
Not required. I made no probability statements, nor did I claim that the scientific method quantified things in the form of a stack-ranked standard. Thanks for the strawman again.

And I have previously offered what I personally consider to be a strong set of proofs: objective data, derived from the scientific method, coming from multiple independent discplines.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I agree that 2 + 2 = 4, but isn't that just another tautology?
</font>
No. The proof for this in the textbook was to set out the question thusly: demonstrate that, in all areas of science and in all parts of the universe, and in all ages and eons, that 2+2=4. We spent awhile trying to come up with situations (relatavistic situations, etc.) where the normal understanding of mathematics might fail. The proof, however, was relatively simple: lack of any contrary example. The demonstration was to prove that 2+2 might equal 5. Or 20 - or any other number. Of course, we couldn't do that.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
And how does the scientific method prove that the scientific method is the only way to really know something?
</font>
Proof by lack of contrary example.


 
 

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.