A major bone of contention between us (TSZ) and our friends at Uncommon Descent is origins, how things came to be.
It is pretty clear from their recent writings that despite earlier protestations to the contrary, UD is a Christian apologetics website looking to boost and support the Christian story of origins.
Barry has claimed: “The documents constituting the New Testament are vouchsafed with the blood of the martyrs. Nothing else comes remotely close.”
Islam and the Heaven’s Gate cult also have had people willing to die for them. So, they come close. Also, not all of them can be true given their contradictory truth claims. We can therefore rule out wanting to die for something being a guarantee of truth.
KirosFocus looks to bolster the argument with “with 500 core witnesses, not one of whom could be turned by the threats or inducements of state agents determined to uproot what they saw as a potential source of uprisings”, but as far as I can tell this is poor thinking, he is citing the bible to support the biblical account (1 Cor 15:1) – So the number is irrelevant, we are still left with only the primary source.
KF also tells us, “we have four eyewitness lifespan biographies, one of which is volume 1 of the earliest history of the Christian movement, credibly initially complete c 62 AD. a two-volume work that has been abundantly vindicated as to habitual, detailed accuracy and capturing nuances of setting in ways not plausible for people projecting back from later times. This consciously historical work uses a second biography as a major source, reinforcing the conclusion”
This is closer to the truth; there are four accounts that were written at the earliest decades after the purported events all of which are part of the bible, not independent support for it. I image that people at that time would understand the nuances of biblical times far better than we do, so I’m not sure there’s any argument about ‘good context’ to be made.
See also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#The_synoptic_problem)
So my question is, outside of the bible, what historical evidence do we have for the story of Jesus? Having been told by Barry “The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most reliably documented events in all of human history.” (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-why-liars-lie/#comment-580232) I’d like to see those documents, the non-biblical ones.
The scientific aim is obviously to have a consilient picture of events, multiple independent and reinforcing narratives, like this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I missed that. What are you warning me against?
I don’t know it, in the sense of being certain. It is a useful working hypothesis.
I’m not sure what process you envision is happening here but I’ll go with the flow while I have time.
I proceed on the basis of what works. Testing is a process of feedback. One of my favourite axioms is “if something isn’t working, try something else”.
See my earlier reply.
I did not ask about certainty I asked about knowledge. Do you know it at all? If so how? Be spesific
How do you know that “what works” is a valid criteria for judging the truth of proposition? again be specific
Do you agree that something can be false and still seem to work at least for a while?
For example heliocentricism seemed to “work” for a long time but was completely false.
peace
I think I know something (depending whether you mean the same as me when I use the word know)
Via my sensory system plus the feedback of interaction with the external world.
I know you’re not the only one to use this phrase but I’m finding it irritating.
I’m not truth judging so I don’t need to validate my criterion. I’m a pragmatist.
🙁
I think Isaac Asimov expresses “The Relativity of Wrong” most eloquently.
Relatively wrong but it’s mathematically possible to assume the centre of the Earth or the centre of the Sun in a coordinate system that will predict accurately the movements of the solar system. I suspect the simpler math results from taking the centre of mass of the biggest body in the system you are modelling as zero. Isn’t there also something called the three body problem which I see has been solved.
think is not the same as know. I’m not asking if you think you know something. If you were in the matrix or a Boltzmann brain and every thing you think know could be wrong. Do you agree?
1) how do you know that these are the best way to acquire knowledge?
2) If you were in the matrix or a Boltzmann brain could you deceived about the information you gain via these
Is Relatively wrong actually wrong in your worldview?
IOW is your “no uphill flowing water” stand like heliocentricism?
peace
Did I suggest otherwise?
Well, you’ll have to be a little more precise in your phrasing, then.
Are you mixing up Boltzmann brains (for which the Wikipedia entry makes absolutely no sense at all to me) and the “brain-in-a-vat” thought experiment? The possibility that my brain is isolated in a nutrient medium and being fooled into its perception of reality can’t be totally ruled out. I find it so implausible that I can’t work up the enthusiasm to give it any consideration.
Why me? Why not you? Except in my simulation you appear to be a real source of pixels.
It is the only way any sentient biological organism learns about the external world.
In the science fiction scenario where it is technically possible to simulate perfectly genuine sensorimotor interactions with the real world, I guess.
I see you spectacularly missed the point of Asimov’s essay. Did you read it? It’s quite concise.
No. Water running uphill flouts the law of
conservation of mass and energythermodynamics. Heliocentrism is a point of view. Asimov writes in his essay:Copernicus switched from an Earth-centered planetary system to a Sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky and, eventually, the geocentric theory was just left behind.
No a brain in a vat is the equivalent of the matrix a Boltzmann brain is a spontaneous and random occurrence there is no bad guy when it comes to a Boltzmann brain. They just happen in an infinite multiverse or it’s equivalent.
If modern cosmology is correct there is a high probability that I am a Boltzmann brain.
Boltzmann brains are plausible given the consensus understanding of cosmology .
How do you know that laws of nature are universal and eternal?
Please be specific it will make this easier
peace
I don’t. I think I already said this. I accept it as a working hypothesis which is concomitant my experience and the shared experience of others.
Sean Carroll is not so sure.
So you agree that given your worldview it’s entirely possible that water flows uphill in another place in our universe or it will begin to flow uphill tomorrow morning?
peace
I’m not saying that Boltzmann brains exist but that they are possible even plausible given modern cosmology.
I’ll check out Carroll’s article but unless he proves that Boltzmann brains are impossible it will not make any difference to my point. I’m reasonably sure that if he did prove that Boltzmann brains are impossible he would be inline for a Nobel prize for shaking up the world of physics
I don’t think I’ve given you any reason to parse that from what I’ve been saying. I’m saying that the properties of matter and energy for this Universe are, well, universal. In the influence of gravity, liquid water will run to the lowest available place whether on Earth, Mars or the ancestral home of the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal.
How exactly do you know this?
If you mean to say that it is impossible for water to flow uphill you need more justification than that you are unaware of any times that water flowed uphill. Remember the problem of induction.
I think you would grant that you are not omniscient and it’s possible something might have escaped your notice.
If you are merely claiming that you think that water can’t flow uphill. I would ask why should anyone care what you think.
I’m much more interested in what you know.
peace
I think I already said I don’t know this.
Not for my working hypothesis I don’t. I’m happy to wait for reports of this, so far, unobserved phenomenon.
I remember a mathematical proof by induction. We have astronomical observation and a little evidence in from space probes. It’s not just guesswork.
I’ll happily grant that. Do you think water is secretly running uphill when nobody is looking?
If you don’t care to hear, simply stop asking.
I know nothing. Actually, in the light of what
RortyAsimov said about Socrates, I’ll change that to I know very little.ETA correction on misremembered source
I think it might advance the discussion if FMM would stipulate (and be as specific as possible) what he means by the word “know,” as in “How do you know that?”
So far, it seems that he has in his mind a meaning of “to know” that eludes the understanding of most of his questioners, myself included.
He has denied that his concept requires certainty. What does it require? (Other than his presupposition of the existence of a [Christian – it has to be Christian for some unspecified reason] god who guarantees the validity of such “knowing”?)
Well there you go, My hypothesis stands,
remember I said
quote:
It’s a hypothesis of mine that the Logos is necessary for any knowelege whatsoever. If knowledge exists the Logos exists
end quote:
Since you do not claim to know anything this particular replication of the experiment is apparently over.
If you will provide a list of all the things you know we can begin again.
peace
knowledge is justified true belief,
In order to know something you need to believe it you need to be justified in believing it and it needs to be true.
It requires belief, That you are justified in holding that belief and that what you believe is in fact true.
Nothing obscure or difficult simple stuff.
In my case these conditions are met because the Logos is truth and God can reveal stuff to me in such a way that I can be justified in believing it.
What I want to know is how you go about meeting those conditions in your worldview
Peace
I’ll just park these here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07QUPuZg05I&feature=youtu.be&t=61m35s
Over at UD, KF Muses:
“This is the reason why the skepticism cannot in the end succeed. Too many people know the truth from the inside, and too many others see or have seen the impact of the truth in these lives.”
He is presumably talking about Islam.
Muh feels! OTF fail.
Mormonism. You know in your heart that eleven sworn eyewitnesses cannot be wrong.
I’m a live-and-let-live atheist. I have no interest in persuading you out of a personal belief. I think it is an emotional need and so long as you don’t want to impose your beliefs on others you are welcome to it.
This was not a discussion about personal beliefs
The issue was whether we have collaborating evidence of the Logos’ existence. I provided that evidence in the form the following syllogism
1) If knowledge exists the Logos exists.
2) knowledge exists
therefore the Logos exists
Since you have denied premise number two I can not convince you of the validity of the argument but then again if you don’t know anything there is really no point in discussing anything at all.
peace
Non-christian theisms are no problem for my position. I presuppose the Christian God not generic deity
besides Islam (and Mormonism) fail according to their very own criteria.
The Koran asks that Christians judge Islam by the new testament…………… It fails that test spectacularly
The Book of Mormon asks that Christians read it and pray and they will receive guidance as to whether the book of Mormon is scripture…………. I’ve done so and God told me it was not scripture.
See how easy that was
peace
Almost there.
All you need to do now, is find similar reasons to dismiss the Holy Bible, and you be set.
If you have some let me know. I am completely serious about that
peace
The OP states that Theobald’s 29+ evidences for macroevolution is scientific. However anyone can see that the claims are not even testable. Not only that the article claims that nested hierarchies are evidence for Common Descent. Yet we know that is false due to the very nature of transitional forms- they would blur the lines of distinction nested hierarchies require.
Well if there’s interest, Joe, we can start a thread for the Theobald’s evidences.
If it’s your argument that there is no support for the Gospels outside the Bible, then what “conflicting claims about the past’ do you have in mind?
I have though attempted to address your questions a number of times, usually in the context of how we acquire knowledge. My view is that generally we accept that people tell the truth and we obtain knowledge via testimony from others.
The writers of the Gospels were either eyewitnesses or spoke to eyewitnesses:
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
Here’s another book that directly addresses your concerns with specific regard to history and miracles:
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
But shouldn’t there have been critics?
Jewish Responses To Early Christians
If you hurry you could be the first to read it.
Who spoke to whom?
Okay Mung. Will you grant the same to all other religions?
Bart Ehrman debates Mike Licona
Licona is author of The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, said to be a response to Ehrman. I haven’t watched it yet, but intend to soon.
Glen Davidson
I will,
I know of no other religions that make the sort of claims about historic events witnessed by known contemporaries that Christianity does if there were any I’d sure give those claims serious consideration.
Miracles are not in and of themselves verification of the truth of a religion. I grant the possibility of “demonic” miracle working. In fact that was the position that the contemporary opponents of Jesus took
peace
On the other hand, it doesn’t seem like you’ve really bothered to consider miracle claims of other religions:
http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2009/05/jesus-interrupted-bart-ehrman-on.html
But how would anyone know if these were true? Basically, you don’t, and you can’t. It’s hard enough to check out present-day claims of miracles (in principle this doesn’t seem to be necessary, but in practice it’s the rule), and it’s nearly impossible to imagine a miracle that could be shown to have occurred a thousand or more years ago. I might be tempted except very large-scale enduring stuff as evidence for a miracle, but, if made of ordinary matter of some kind, aliens would be a competitive answer.
So did Muhammed rise to heaven on a creature of some kind? Doesn’t seem that non-Muslims think it worthy of much thought.
Glen Davidson
I did listen to the debate, and it seems not to amount to much, at least to anyone reasonably familiar with internet exchanges on these matters. Ehrman did fine, I think, and Licona tried, but I think that about all he did was to show that if you don’t think miracles to be improbable, miracle tales happen to make more sense with the miracles than without them. Which I didn’t think was the real issue. Yes, tales involving miracles purportedly showing the divinity of Jesus more plausibly involve actual miracles if you don’t think miracles are improbable, the problem is that miracles in fact appear to be improbable.
Licona tried to show that miracles aren’t improbable because some pastor was in a coma, then at 4 o’clock on some day (Sunday?) a group of people prayed for him, and he came out of the coma. Amazingly, so did the others in his vicinity, who had also been in comas. And I’m just thinking, first off, how true is any of this? Assuming that what he said was basically all true, though, was this the first time that anyone had prayed that the pastor would come out of his coma? If not, why aren’t previous prayers to be considered failures? Or at least, assuming that prayers were made for him every day, why should the fact that a group prayed that day be causal for the end of his coma? And, did they pray that the others should come out of their comas? How did this become part of the “miracle” if they didn’t pray that the others come to, however unusual it may have been?
Licona invokes the blather of “worldviews” early on, never mind that we all really share the one world view of empiricism (we’ll call it that for convenience, despite it being more complicated than just empiricism), save for the exceptions made for the religions of many people. It isn’t the empiricism that’s in question, it’s the exceptions that are made that are in question. He also goes for the false dilemma, either miracles are excluded a priori, or they’re treated like any other cause. No, miracles needn’t be excluded a priori for us to be dubious of miracle claims, for miracles are at best rare, with apparently bogus miracle claims not being very rare at all. They should be considered low probability (least probable says Ehrman, but I’d say among the least probable, since I think a host of possible but improbable concurrent coincidences in a story would be in practice be considered as doubtful as a miracle claim), and it seems almost impossible for an ancient miracle story to make them even slightly more probable, even if true. For the question remains, how would you know?
Glen Davidson
This is just false.
What you are calling empiricism is actually a conclusion that flows necessarily from my worldview’s presuppositions
I know I can trust my senses and natural laws are eternal and universal only because the Christian God exists.
On the other hand folks from your side want to act as if the conclusion of empiricism is true while denying the very presuppositions that lead to it. You missed a step, This is illogical
Before you get to empiricism you owe us a coherent justification why it should be the case that empiricism is true.
Hint: “it seems to work” is not a justification
As far as miracles go.
Miracles surrounding the incarnation are definitely not improbable given my worldview. In fact they are to be expected.
peace
Actually I have considered and continue to consider the miracle claims of other religions. I am functionally agnostic about such claims and take the time to look at each one in context as I come across them. That is what an open-minded individual would be expected to do.
I have given it a lot of thought. It’s been a while but here are some of the highlights off the top of my head .
1)The first account of Muhammed’s night flight is not recorded till hundreds of years after his death.
2) Unlike Jesus Muhammed specifically says that he did not offer any miracles to confirm his message. So whether he flew to Jerusalem makes no difference at all in the scene of things
3) Muhammed is a false prophet based on the criteria that the Koran itself offers. So even if he did fly to Jerusalem I would still reject his claim.
There are other points as well but hopefully you get the point
peace
Making up premises does work, I gather.
Well sure, made up stuff is your very “foundation” for “knowledge.”
Glen Davidson
You seem to know very little about miracle claims in other religions. More to the point, you accept miracle claims for your own, and are “agnostic” about others without any apparent reason why this should be so.
So? Even if the Jesus miracles are recorded much sooner, there’s nothing that makes them reliable.
No, it makes no difference to Islam (or so one would gather). It makes a great deal of difference to most of us if there is even a single well-documented miracle.
So would I, especially since there’s nothing about miracles that vouches for the truth of anything that a miracle-worker proclaims. That doesn’t mean that a bonafide miracle wouldn’t be a serious matter for consideration by philosophy and science.
What point, that historic miracle claims cannot be vetted at this late date? That’s about all I care about the issue, really.
Glen Davidson
nope incorrect again
I made nothing up God clearly reveals himself.
quote:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:19-20)
end Quote:
I’m not building a “foundation” out of thin air but out of my undeniable tangible experience of God.
By the way you share this same experience.
I don’t think this is the case at all. I have spent a lot of time exploring the miracle claims of all the religions that I am familiar with and continue to new claims as they arise. That is why I asked if you knew of any that were similar to those made by Christianity. Apparently you don’t or you would link to a document instead of a quote of a quote from a blog post
Agnosticism is the proper response to any claim that you haven’t explored fully. Once you investigated a claim you either reject or accept it.
I accepted the claims of Christianity and rejected those of Islam only after I investigated them. It is what any open minded individual would do
peace
If a person claims to be divine then extraordinary command of the forces of nature would tend to support his claim.
If not why not?
peace
It is my belief that I know my name.
I am justified in believing it by the references to me, by that name, that I have received throughout my memory.
According to my birth certificate and other documents, my belief is in fact true.
What in hell has the logos got to do with that?
How do you know that God reveals stuff to you?
Why couldn’t it be Satan or one of his “minions”?
Why do you need somebody else to tell you how to understand anything?
I’m not sure I even understand the question.
I think that people are generally honest regardless of religion and that eyewitness testimony is generally accepted to be true regardless of religion. I don’t, for example, think you’re a liar because you are an atheist.
If this were not true I fail to see how communication could even be possible in any meaningful way.
You can’t just choose to ignore the Gospels because you don’t like them. Well, you can, lol. But that’s not skepticism.
Here we go yet again. Don’t say I did not warn you
How do you know that your birth certificate and other documents are accurate?
What criteria did you use to determine that your birth certificate and other documents qualify as evidence for the truth of a proposition?
Please be specific and comprehensive it will make this process go easier
well among other things
The Logos is truth and with out truth knowledge is impossible.
peace
do you agree that it is at least possible that an omnipotent God could reveal something in such a way that I could know it?
Satan could reveal something to me just as you could. The problem is that unless it’s God who is revealing a proposition I can not be guaranteed of it’s truth
Because I am not omniscient and my perspective is subjective. I need access to objective truth in order to know stuff about objective reality.
peace
Mung were the people who testified they saw Joseph Smith’s golden tablets liars?
Polybius is a well-known liar. 🙂
No idea. Even if they were, so what?
I would say there is a good possibility they weren’t lying but it makes absolutely no difference.
Golden tablets do not a restoration make.
peace
I note that theists will eat the bullshit that their parents fed them and reject the bullshit that other parents fed their children.
Fascinating.