It appears that Atheists have some sort of obsessive delusion that proof makes truth.

Unfortunately things can be true in the total absence of proof.

Fortunately Christians have more evidence for their beliefs than proof obsessed Atheists are prepared to admit.

Since when was atheism an intellectual contest? I'd say it's when aggressive competitive materialists got hold of their proof gimmick and wouldn't let go.

This intellectual blindness makes for a dull discussion since they demand the tangible to prove the intangible.

There are only two pieces of evidence that I need ... do the precepts of Christ work in practice ... is there any rational alternative to their being divinely sourced given the witnesses to his resurrection?

Answers, yes, and no.

Let's get the atheists to pack up their proof toys so we can all get on with living.

Blessings and Peace

Hilarius

Yeah, right.

Provide an example and the associated method for determining that it was true.


Yawn. Got proof?

You have no proof that the intangible exists. Therefore accusing us of blindness is incorrect, since you have no proof that there is anything out there to be seen.

Invisible Pink Unicorn arguments don't cut it.

No one cares about your personally defective standards, thank you. We're talking about evidence and proof. Got either one?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1: In history, we simply start from a known base of fact, and then we build upwards from there. But each successive layer is less certain, more guarded, and not something to be called "truth" or "proof" or "evidence". The uppermost layer contains things that we do not know for sure, and there may be substantial debate about. I realize that uncertainty rankles you to no end because theists crave the seal of evidence as affirmation for your beliefs. However, you cannot rise to the evidentiary bar necessary to qualify.

I step away for half a day and look at everything I miss out on You and Layman have covered most of the ground. In my opinion, you’re not a fair person. You make constant demands of the people with whom you are debating, but you refuse to answer direct questions asked to you. You use terms like “less likely”, etc. fully recognizing that we are not talking about an exact science when discussing historical probability, but when asked to quantify the probability of an alleged historical event you refuse to give a straight answer while ridiculing the answers we give. Anyone reading this thread can see through your tactics.

I haven’t used terms claiming “proof” for anything. Why do you keep doing the “straw man” thing? We’ve told you on several occasions that we aren’t talking about “proof”. Uncertainty does not “rankle” me in the least as I’ve clearly shown by giving probabilities of less than 100% for my beliefs. However, it does appear to “rankle” you quite a bit because you refuse to quantify your beliefs. Your false assumptions never cease.

I agree with you that any epistemology works from what is "most known" to what is "less known". I suppose you'll now try to tell me that I don't believe this. You're adeptness at clairvoyance is amazing.
In response to my third request for you to address my examples, you said:

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Unknown probability. Open to being persuaded, as soon as more evidence comes in.

As your paragraph above clearly indicates you believe in a range of probability from 0-100% for all alleged historical events. You only want to talk about the events that are 100% certain and yet you have the audacity to slander my comment about how there would only be one history class taught in colleges. The reason you only want to talk about events with 100% certainty is because those are the only events which fit your criteria of the scientific method. I’ll give you an example to choose, with my full realization again that you will refuse to answer a direct question knowing that it will expose the shallowness of your argument.

Pick one or more of the following claims and use your criteria to tell us the level of probability for the claim being true. You don’t have to use a mathematical formula, just a percentage and a brief explanation of your reasoning. Now its your turn to "rise to the evidentiary bar necessary to qualify".

Aristotle wrote “Metaphysics”.
Plato wrote “Phaedo”.
Augustine wrote “Confessions”.

These are basic claims taught in all relevant history courses, so its applicable to my comment about your criteria greatly reducing the amount of history which would be taught in our universities.

Peace,

Polycarp

Lyaman,

Supertroll here doens't know jack shit about history or science. Why bother arguing with him. He's just a gain sayinger. You say yes he says no. Looking over the whole thread he has nothing of any substance to say at all. He doens't understand the way historians think about history, and all he can really do is to call names.

You might as well argue witha brick and I'm sure a birck would give more enlightened responses.

Let's see, calling people names. criticiquing their spelling, and asserting whatever you want but than claiming that the other guys arguments are just assertions.ng "prove it" after everything they say. But than that version of hisotircal method is nowhere exhibted better than by Supertroll Omed or whatever his name is.

The basic attitude of an historian toward any text should be one of assertainting probability. We cannot verify anything first hand. All history is probaility based upon whatever data is avaible. But it's not mathematical. No one tries to assign actual figures to it. Historical probability is more general.



The historical cirtical methods argues for taking the text at face value unless some reason can be showen not to. It does not proceed from the assumption that the text must be a lie. It works through scientfic methods to reconstrcut original sources to whatever degree possible, and that means dealing with the actual manuscripts, comparing actual copies to determine the nature of the original text.

It's very important to understand the nature of the genre in which the author is working and to assertain the kind of document that is being examained. That's where form or source criticism come in; the assumptions are made about the nature of the form of the text and how the form developed.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
Perhaps you could list the criteria we SHOULD be using when doing historical investigation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Scientific Method would be a good start.[QUOTE]

MEta =&gt; how does that work in terms of texts? What do you mean by that? that is what is being done already.

MEta =&gt;Textual critics dont' make value judgements with regard to the historical truth of the text. The historical-critical method is a tool of textual critics, not of historians in general, where Biblical scholarship is concerned. But the assumption of being value netural with regard to the text does not mean enshiring natrualistic assumptions, necessarily. It doesn't mean assuming the text is "made up."


quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The items I've listed are not unique to studying Christianity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =&gt; O "we" do hu? Are we a scholar? Do we teach at a university or seminary? Do we have a doctroate in textual criticism? In any case that is what scholarship demands. But one can't only approach the Gospels or any Biblical text as a shcolar. There is also personal belief. Christians should learn to distinguish the two. But in dealing with apologetics or giving an account of personal faith that is not always possible. It's unfair to expect to criticize personal faith and than expect the believer to repond only in terms of scholarship.


quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of them are used when studying any sort of ancient history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I note you were careful to say some of them.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its easy to criticize the rules when you don't like the outcome, so please tell us which "rules" you think we should use.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEta =-&gt;O really that's interesting. It seems like science always arrives at this business about naturalistic cause and effect, why doens't your statement apply to that? To rule out a method because it "always arrives at the same conclusions" would not only rule out all sicientific method, but it also seems to be a demand to load the dice because the data doesn't support your ideology.


Your rebuttal amounts to "These are our rules. If you don't have any better ones, then our rules stand."


METa =&gt;Your ciriticims amount to "I dont' like the conclusions so change the rules for me."

METa =&gt;Yea what rules of the historical ciritical method do you not like?

Oh oh, there's your problem Polycarp.The scientific method can be applied to history! It is all the time. History is a social science, it is in the vein of the social sciences that the historical method is applied. The problem is, we have to understand our own needs in coming to the text. We cant' just live in the world as official objective research machines or data gathering units. We have to be people too, and that means for some us, you and I, we have religious needs (we all have them but we dont' all understand that). And so we address the text as believers as well as shcolars.

So we have to understand that distinction and how it's applied. In dealing with faith we accept and live by the power of the resurrection, as shcolars we can't assume the historical truth of the resurrection.

But here we have to understand the meaning of "historicity." That doesn't mean that we have totally proven the resurrection. But we can't just rule it out on ideological (anti-supernaturalist) grounds either. We have to establish a probabiltiy if we are going to argue for it, or for any of the miracles, but that will always be a balck box objectively because it will always be subject to the basic assumptions we take to the text about the supernatural and the possibility of supernatural effects.

In other words, we can be scientific in history, and most historians are. But we can't prove that mircles have happened, but we we can't just rule them out a prori and call it scholarship either.

MEta =&gt;Yea right,and they are really the ones to do it too! Why don't we get Bertrand Russell to write the creeds?



Meta =&gt;How does that make them better attested? When one says 'attested' in Biblical schoalrship it usually means the existence of certain texts. To be better attested they would have to have more copies of ms closer to the original autographs.I dont' think that is true at all. In fact i think they have a real problem authenticating Ms. Just the existence of claims is not attestation.

Meta =&gt; Again, attestatin is neither the number of claims nor the existence of claims. So just having more works doens't make their tradition any better attested. Attestation is the exact physical existence of a MS. Exmaple, we say the Gospel of Mark is attested proior to 200 AD with 16 MS. That means we have 16 actual copies of the Gospel that date prior to that time. That is better attestation than having just one copy , or just three copies. So if the Buddihists have 1000 suitras and we have four Gospels, but they only have 1 or 2 coplies of each Sutra from proror to printing and we have 12 for each of our four Gospels, our Ms have better attestation.

And I dout that they have anything like the medical screening process for dtermining miracles that the Catholics do, which offers some actual scientific verifcation of cliams at least in the sense of showing that there is no naturalistic explaination for a given event.



MEta =&gt;That's ture. That determination can't be made as a scholarly finding or as a sicentific fact. But than you also are playing the bias from the other side of the coin. That doens't mean that doubt is just the order of the day either. So when one decides to place faith in the text and beleive mircles that is a personal decision. To argue that one should make that decsion can only be accomplished from a stand point of probability, but that in no way means we need to automatically rule it out either. That's just ideology and truth by stipiulation.


Meta =&gt;Why do they need to be dissmissed or accepted as anything? Why can't that just be the individual's decision to make? And that is merely truth by stipulation. You are trying to say "heads I win tails you lose."

1) all miraculous claims investigated today are proven fictions, and we have no reason to assume that the universe was radically different in the past.


MEta =&gt;That is just utter bull shit. By no means are all miracles cliams disproven! where did you get that tripe? Many are documented and never explained. To "disprove them" you have to dismiss them out of hand becasue of the source, which sure is what you do. There are rehemes of data demonstrating unexplained "miracles" in the Catholic chruch which I'm sure you just dismiss merely because the RCC is involved.

2) miracles have no specifiable properties and so cannot be investigated rigorously.


METa =&gt;That too is BS and has nothing to do with the case. Besides the other guy says that when some method always comes to the same conclusion it should be rejected. So if miracles are always found not ture your method is always coming to the same conclusion.

3) Jesus miracles are consistent with the miracles performed by other miracles workers of the same age in many places around the world. Jesus left us no interesting miracles (imagine if he had raised a pyramid of plastic blocks that floated in the air, moved the city of Jerusalem to a position outside what is now Chicago, Illinois, or actually, brought world peace). That is powerful evidence perfectly natural events were going on.

MEta =&gt;That's a cheesy argument and is really BS. Why should we expect such amazing stupidity? That just means you are rasing the bar to demand events that conform to dream logic. Jesus' miracles seem realistic and that makes me think they are true. RElatively realistic.

4) miracles are impossible under the natural laws as we understand them today.

METa =&gt; O up to your old tricks of ciruclar reasoning again Dr. Hume? Mircles don't happen,and how do we know? BEcause they are not the sort of thing that conforms to our rules about what can happen! Circular reaosning.

and so on. You get the drift.

Finally, history OF COURSE may be investigated using the principles of science. What are geology, paleontology, archaeology and many other disciplines but the history of earth, life and humankind? Scientific examination can prove or disprove historic events and claims, as well as open up new views on history. Which way did syphyllis go across the Atlantic? Settled by science. Was Maine blown up, or did it suffer a coal-dust explosion? And so on.

Michael[/B][/QUOTE]


Yea course it can, but it must never ever ever contian any miracles because they dont' happen, and we know they dont' happen because they are aren't naturalistic. And we know that only naturalistic things happen becasue mrialces don't happen, and we know they don't happen because they aren't natrualistic...

Originally posted by Hilarius:

It appears that Atheists have some sort of obsessive delusion that proof makes truth.

Hilarious:

A delusion is a false idea.

How do we prove an idea is false?

Surely we must demand proof, and what is proof? Physical evidence/eyewitness reports/logical arguments? Or emotions/opinions/beliefs?

Your words: Unfortunately things can be true in the total absence of proof.

My words: While this may be true, how do we prove it? Opinions/emotions/beliefs? Or physical evidence/eyewitness reports/logical arguments?

Your words: Fortunately Christians have more evidence for their beliefs than proof obsessed Atheists are prepared to admit.

My words: What proof do you have the "Christians have more evidence for their beliefs than proof obsessed Atheists are prepared to admit"?

Physical evidence in terms of original manuscripts/copies/translations?

Eyewitness reports within those manuscripts?

Do we have corroborating reports from credible witnesses outside holy books? How do we prove/disprove that Xns did/did not insert interpolations/fictions/lies into corroborating sources?

Your words: Since when was atheism an intellectual contest? I'd say it's when aggressive competitive materialists got hold of their proof gimmick and wouldn't let go.

My words: The "proof gimmick" is serious. Would you take a chance on flying in an airplane that was designed by beliefs/opinions or in an airplane that was designed according to proven scientific principles?

I would prefer the scientifically designed airplane, and I am sure you would, too.

But what about religious claims concerning medical issues? Would you follow Xn Scientists and not treat your child according to proven medical/scientific information but, instead, according to someone's interpretation/opinion/belief of a biblical passage? Remember, we need to make a decision concerning if or not biblical passages are true before we use those passages to make decisions concerning medical treatments for our children, etc., and we need to be as objective as possible, and it seems that objectivity requires physical evidence/eyewitness reports from credible witnesses/logical arguments/etc.

Your words: This intellectual blindness makes for a dull discussion since they demand the tangible to prove the intangible.

My words: How do you prove that the intangible exists/is real in contrast to being the content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.?

Your words: There are only two pieces of evidence that I need ... do the precepts of Christ work in practice ... is there any rational alternative to their being divinely sourced given the witnesses to his resurrection?

Answers, yes, and no.

My words: Your evidence "... do the precepts of Christ work in practice?" seem emotionally based, for the precepts of Buddha/PURE Buddhism "work in practice" but do not necessarily prove that Buddha is a god:

The essence of Buddhism: The Four Noble Truths
1. Dukkha: Man suffers.
2. Tanha: Man suffers because of greed, defined as excessive desire.
3. Nirvana: Man’s suffering can be alleviated.
4. Marga: Man’s suffering can be alleviated by means of The Eightfold Path.
1. Right View or Knowledge.
2. Right Thought.
3. Right Speech.
4. Right Conduct.
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort.
7. Right Mind Control.
8. Right Meditation.

PURE Buddhism is the above essence without Eastern religious metaphysics:

A. Samsara: The Wheel of Birth and Rebirth, typically translated by Westerners as reincarnation.
B. Karma: The works done in a previous life have influence on one's station in a reincarnation.
C. Nirvana: Release from Samsara.

PURE Buddhism is cognitive psychology, and cognitive psychology works for many forms of mental disorders based upon errors of thought/thinking. [Check the works of Dr. Albert Ellis/Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and Dr. Aaron T. Beck/Cognitive Psychology. See also Operational Psychology on www.bobkwebsite.com ]

Natural morality, defined as morality without gods, works, but that is not reason to worship anyone who espouses natural morality.

Natural Morality:

Thomas Jefferson: The essence of all law is that no man should injure another; all the rest is commentary.

An innocent person is an individual who intends to not injure another person who, in turn, does not intend to injure him or any other person.

A criminal is an individual who intends to injure an innocent person.

A normal person develops natural morality through a process as follows:

We are all selfish. We can count on that to be a fact.

Selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to maximize one's happpiness.

Personal selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to maximize one's happpiness without regard for the desires and happiness of other people.

Social selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to maximize one's happiness by cooperating with other people to help them achieve their desires and to maximize their happiness.

Individuals are born personally selfish but learn that to achieve many if not most if not all of their desires and to maximize their happiness they need the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people, for which they, the individuals, must be ready, willing and able to cooperate with those other people to negotiate common desires, compromising personal desires when necessary but reasonable.

Sociopaths, individuals who are in touch with reality, and psychopaths, individuals who are not in touch with reality, remain personally selfish, and without conscience, and are therefore dangerous to normal individuals and to society in general.

Civilization is renewed in every generation when normal individuals realize that in order to achieve their desires and to maximize their happiness they need the cooperation of other people for which they must be willing to cooperate with those other people.

Thus, people are selfish, but those who are socially selfish are selfish in the best possible way, for they, in their selfishness, will help other people--not a bad situation for anyone.

Thus, natural morality works. Gods are not needed to the development of a natural morality. Does that prove gods do not exist? No. But it does prove that at least some forms of worthwhile morality can be developed without gods.

Your words re: your "evidence" which prompts you to know/believe in the words of X: "... is there any rational alternative to their being divinely sourced given the witnesses to his resurrection?

My words: THE problem of religion/religious discussion/theology is determining if or not gods exist and SOME of the related problems include (1) determining if or not X's words/works/theology is/are "divinely sourced" and (2) determining the credibility of the "witnesses to [X's] resurrection."

I use the critical method--requiring proof in terms of (A) physical evidence; (B) eyewitness reports from credible witnesses corroborated by reports from credible contemporary individuals outside the Bible and proven to not be contaminated by Xn interpolations/fictions/lies; and/or (C) logical arguments not contaminated by unverified premises..

I get the impression that you use the emotional method: If it feels good, it must be true/if it feels bad it must be false. [See below.]

Your "proofs" are obviously based upon assumptions without real proof of any kind, and this is understandable given your statement that some statements/assertions/claims of fact are true without proof.

But how can your "proofs" be acceptable in serious discourse when you consider that serious discourse requires supporting proof for propositions/assertions/claims of fact, and even opinions/beliefs, which, to at least a minor extent, have to be be based upon physical evidence/eyewitness reports/logical arguments?

Does not your argument asking for rational alternatives commit the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance? Are you not arguing that a lack, in your opinion, of a rational alternative to your proposition is proof that your proposition is true? It seems that you are, therefore you are indeed committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium.

Your words: Let's get the atheists to pack up their proof toys so we can all get on with living.

My words: What is the contrast to "proof toys"? Emotional toys? If it feels good it's true/if it feels bad it's false?

Anonymous, quoted in Dr. Gordon Stein, A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, stated that the fundamental conflict between/among theists and nontheists/atheists/agnostics results from, in his observation, the use of the emotional method of proof by theists and the critical method by nontheists, such critical method including requirements for proof, which we are trying to determine in this post.

If the critical method is the "proof toy" and the emotional method is the "emotional toy," then let us choose the "proof toy" to make decisions concerning how we will relate to each other as people and to reality as the other things/events who/which are not people. Especially designing airplanes and making medical decisions concerning the health of our children.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited March 21, 2001).]