Doug Shaver

Tanya, if it were me against Wikipedia, I would win, but it's not even that. Your quotation has no relevance to what I said.

tanya

In reply, tanya cited a reference from Wikipedia, explaining "evidence based practice", to compare with mountainman's observation, the statement that led Doug to suggest that mountainman's claim ("Estimation of validity is based on evidence") was illogical--> hence the need to participate in a university course in logic.

Doug, I have never studied philosophy, nor taken a university course in logic, 101, or anything else.

I do not find mountainman's sentence to be illogical.

If an estimate of validity is not based upon evidence, then, upon what is it based?

What is evidence, Doug? In the end, is not all "evidence" merely sensory input to the central nervous system?

Can someone who is blind regard a painting claimed to be by Monet, to declare its authenticity? Can such a person attest to validity?

Can someone who is deaf distinguish Schubert's Goethe lieder from Mahler's Kindertotenlieder? Can they VALIDATE the youthful age of the performer?

Doug, without our central nervous system, there is no "validity". Validity depends 100% on "evidence", where evidence is defined, not by "logic 101", but by sensory input to the cerebrum.

mountainman

The method of History is restricted by the regular rules of evidence; the core falsifiable criteria of Popper are required too.

You need to retake History 101, assuming you ever took anything like it.

mountainman

If you are not saying anything positive or negative against the evidence that has been cited on this thread, then what you said has no relevance to the evidence. You may as well be posting on FB or Wiki.

mountainman

Thanks Lugubert,

The relevant chapter in Dupuis' work seems to be entitled"

"An explanation of the fable, in which the Sun is worshiped under the name of Christ"

It will make an interesting read.

Lugubert

Probably a longer read than my Swedish copy of the Napoleon refutation. It's 32 pages of 11 x 7 cm.

mountainman

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"
Pope Leo X (As attributed by John Bale, Bishop of Ossory, in The Pageant of Popes, p. 179, 1574)

Here is a 16th century reference to the idea that Jesus did not exist. Did Ehrman mention the 18th century as the century that such a silly idea might have been invented? There appeared to be people in the 16th century who could entertain such a notion. What makes anyone think this unbelief in an historical Jesus does not go back to Nicaea, like the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum"?


Faith? No body wants to comment on the 4th century evidence of the UNBELIEF of Arius and the Arian philosophers about the Nicaean Jesus. The Platonists, Stoics and Pythagoreans, Epiphanius in the later 4th century refers to as heretics. The existence of an early version of the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" in the time of Eusebius is well attested. What was happening in the book world after Nicaea?

Toto

You know that is a fake quote, right? And it doesn't actually say that Jesus didn't exist.

Arius believed in a Jesus, who was born. You don't want to deal with that.

Doug Shaver

I did not suggest that mountainman's claim was illogical. I asserted that it was incorrect.

Then maybe you should, before you try arguing about logic with someone who has.

Upon its form.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

It depends on context.

In many contexts, yes.

Probably not.

mountainman

The context here is history, not philosophy. Historical validity is not the same as philosophical validity. History is evidence based. Philosophy is not.