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).]

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:

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:


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

Fine. I win. Science triumphs superstition and blind faith. May it ever be so.

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."

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?

"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.

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?

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.

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?

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.