|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't know that I'd used the term incredulity. I think rigor is better. 'I don't believe miracles can happen' is incredulity - inability or unwillingness to believe.
A broad declaration of, "Everything is evidence," has no rigor. Written documents are evidence.
Take the example where I asked you whether, "I just got back from Mars," is evidence. You said it *was* evidence, easily disproved, but still evidence. But whoops, I lied, it's actually the first sentence of my new novel. Is it still evidence? It's evidence. After all you could be lying about having lied or writing a novel. It's just that latter statement is yet another piece of evidence to doubt the reliability of the Mars statement.
So obviously some rigor needs to be introduced. What's the context and provenance of the information, and does it qualify it as evidence in that realm? Of course we rigor. I introduced those things back in Message 655:
quote: And so on.
Regarding John and the miracles specifically, I think I've already explained this. The suspension of natural laws renders it false immediately. So its just incredulity that natural laws can be suspended? Do you have evidence that natural laws cannot be suspended? I suspect you do. And that was my point. You have evidence that you use to question the reliability of other evidence.
For each of these contexts you need to be able judge its appropriateness to be considered as evidence. Not for it to be considered evidence, to judge its quality or reliability as evidence.
Many people think the sun goes around the earth and can't name the three branches of the US government (Americans, I mean). What many people think isn't an argument. Nor is what you think, for what its worth.
But when you say "as do most other people" you don't really believe that something as important as the nature of evidence should be a matter of opinion. What a word means, is how it is used. So how it is used is quite important.
Seems to be a bit of disagreement among historians, including of the miraculous events. Well naturally. I was talking about reliability of the evidence, just like they do.
No, it's not really history. It's quite clearly religion with all the accompanying claptrap of most religions. A document that makes claims about what happened in the past is making historical claims. So it falls under history. History and religion are not mutually exclusive categories. Documents about Buddha's life or Mohammad's life can be both religion and historical evidence regarding their biographical details.
A written witness statement is unsupported claims. If support for the claims is identified then the claims can become evidence. Witness statements are evidence. If they're unsupported then that's another way of saying they are uncorroborated. They don't become evidence upon corroboration. They become corroborated evidence.
This is vaguely worded. I don't know what the second use of "either" applies to. You mean the mundane versus the miraculous? The diary versus the Gospel? The diary vs Gospel.
Anyway, regarding the mundane, obviously it's information about things that may or may not have happened. Maybe they're accurate, maybe they're made up, maybe they're misremembered, maybe they happened but on a different day or with different people. Well yes, obviously.
Testimony is one of the worst forms of information if you're seeking accuracy. Agreed. Unfortunately, sometimes its the only one available.
And now we're not in agreement. Every cockamamie claim about the past is not evidence. Conspiracy theories are a good example of claims about the past that are not evidence of anything, although they're interesting examples of people's ability to bend evidence to their wills. I disagree. They're evidence. Just really bad quality with next to no reliability.
If everything is evidence, which is the direction you're going, evidence ceases to have useful meaning. It's just a synonym for everything. Evidence is that which increases the probability of a hypothesis being true. By any amount. Evidence is interpreted data. My owning a cat doesn't increase the probability that you own a dog. But it does increase the probability that there is catfood somewhere in my house.
Well, first off there's one very important thing to get straight - if I were to kill any cat it wouldn't be somebody else's cat, it would be my own. If you met my cat you'd understand. Heh, but also - this statement is evidence you have a cat.
But seriously, there's no evidence here. There's not even evidence of a dead cat. There's just people saying stuff. Some of it is possible, some of it absurd, but none of it is evidence. Two people arguing about who killed a cat is reasonable evidence of a dead cat. Saying it isn't evidence is unsupportable.
...I understand will be covered in detail by the fingerprint analysis expert who is scheduled to testify later." That's evidence. That's forensic evidence. A pretty good, but not infallible type of evidence. There are other types of evidence than scientific evidence. Especially in the field of history.
Why the Nazis again? Recent event of significant importance that occurred approximately as long ago as the Gospels were from there events. And an example I could be confident wouldn't be obscure to you.
Anyway, does it make sense to you that that portion of Goering's testimony that was self-serving lies was evidence of anything? We can't know what was self-serving lies without comparing his statements to other evidence. Again, weighing two or more pieces of evidence to decide the probable truth based on them.
You didn't evade it? You certainly didn't answer it. The answer was 'To some extent' along with additional information. That's my third time answering it.
This implies you felt the agreement between the Synoptics was sufficient It is not sufficient. I even went on to say 'and the evidence of a shared source of the synoptics means using them to corroborate one another is questionable.'
I don't agree it's a pointless rabbit hole. The question wasn't intended to be about a specific miracle, but was for the purpose of giving you an opportunity to describe how you'd address corroborations about miracles between different books of the Bible. You demurred again. One demurring, okay. Two demurrings? Why? You ignoring my answer isn't me demurring. The answer is that there is some corroboration - but the texts aren't independent which undermines the corroboration. The texts don't agree in a variety of ways. Sometimes when the texts agree, they use identical or near identical words. And also - miracles are more likely to be made up to serve a religious purpose than they are to actually have happened. Again - weighing various pieces of evidences, assessing the reliability of the evidence etc etc etc. I hope you know how this is going to help the discussion because I haven't a clue.
So just to be clear, the question concerns how you'd address a miracle corroborated across all three Synoptic Gospels. If in the end you decide it wasn't a miracle, what does that say about the accounts' status as evidence. You've judged them false - how could they be evidence of anything? I'm not sure how many times you are going to ask me to repeat this: Evidence does not mean something is true.It doesn't mean it is not false. Evidence is something that increases the probability of something. Other evidence can decrease the probability of something. In order for me to believe something, the balance of the evidences has to reach a certain threshold. Things don't stop being evidence just because they suggest something contrary to my views. So it says nothing about the account's status as evidence. It only says something about by belief regarding its credibility. I warrent you are satisfied with with this hole, I wouldn't want anybunny to suggest I took us down it, I hop you know the way back out.
I didn't say you did say there was "no reason". There are no quotation marks around were I said "no reason", and it's not in a quote box. I was quoting you, so I used quotation marks. Is that OK?
Is there a "not" missing in there somewhere, because as written it reads like you're saying, to trim it down a bit and mildly paraphrase, "Whether I accept that the evidence sufficiently supports the claims to elicit my belief in them doesn't mean the evidence isn't evidence." That last part appears to be calling the evidence into question, so I must be parsing this sentence wrong, because why would judging the evidence sufficient call it into question. Can you clarify? The evidence may not sufficiently, in my view, support the claim to elicit my belief.But that being the case, it doesn't stop being evidence. Well, like I've been saying, it's a nomenclature thing. I disagree with how indiscriminately we use the word evidence. So what, in your view, would make something evidence?
Anyway, I'm not arguing about what's normal usage and what's not. I'm arguing that the "normal usage" has diminished the value of the word evidence, turning it into a term that can apply to literally anything. I don't think it can apply to literally anything, though. You certainly haven't supported that position. I mean anything that can be observed can be evidence for something. The interesting question isn't 'is this evidence'. But what propositions are supported by this evidence, and how much support does it give. By taking the stance you have, you have created your own tangle of meaning, but its not too difficult - we typical and technical users all seem to get on just fine with the definition as is.
But someone, a person with all the normal issues of the human perceptual/cognitive system, saying, "The basement floor is wet," is not evidence that the basement floor is wet. I've actually had it happen that one of my children reported a wet basement floor that turned out to be a funny shadow from stuff we'd recently moved around. THat a child was wrong, didn't make it not evidence. It moved you to check it out, so you clearly thought the probability of a wet basement was higher than its baseline probability as a result of the child's report. It turns out that additional evidence overturned that hypothesis.
But that's actually a very good answer because it illustrates all the rigamarole you burden yourself with Historical analysis may be a rigmarole, but its a rigorous pursuit I don't know why you find it problematic.
because for you everything written is evidence until proven otherwise I'll keep repeating it - it's still evidence. There is no proving it otherwise.
instead of taking the opposite course that nothing written is evidence until it has passed some minimum level of vetting. I'm perfectly happy to say 'nothing written is to be believed until it has passed some minimum level of vetting'.
I don't think historians would decide on a binary acceptance/rejection of any unsubstantiated testimony. They would do what you've described a couple times (but that I'll describe in my own words), place all the testimony within a framework of various probabilities that call forth diverse scenarios, none of which are precisely true or false, any of which are possible. Well yes, but that doesn't run counter to what I said, which was about believing. You either believe something or not. You might believe it with a great deal of tentativity, but belief is basically binary.
Yes, this is what I understood Faith to be saying. It's an evangelical approach, not a historical one. That's what we were discussing - the evangelical approach.
But if it's as I said, that they believe in their hearts that they have evidence, then to them it isn't myopic or credulous or insufficient evidence or idiosyncratic or delusional or psychotic. In fact, what they're doing is the behavior of normal human beings. Well yes, obviously. The same is true of deluded psychotics.
That's interesting. You've obviously spent more time with the document than I have. I only read it through from beginning to end once, but its characterization of faith seemed to me a detailed marvel of consistency rather than multi-faceted. The Theological Virtue: This is the theological virtue known as faith, believing what we did not see because we know it in our hearts to be true. Secure Belief in God: Faith is a belief that what is said in the Bible is true based on the eyewitness accounts and the peace that comes when we turn our lives over to God. Faith is also the security of knowing that we are firmly in God’s hands and no matter what happens nothing will shake us from them. Faith is our secure belief in God and our secure belief of God and our secure belief that all things happen through God. Trusting Acceptance of God’s Will: As Christians, we do not only have a secure belief in God, we also have an acceptance that what God tells us to do is for our benefit. A part of the definition of faith is accepting God’s will over our own will. Faith Is A Verb: In a way, faith is a verb because it means we must act on what we believe.Believing what we know in our hearts, believing what the witnesses said, trusting God has our best interests at heart and the doing of faith - acting on those beliefs. Seems like there's a few facets to me. Also from that page:
Yeah, I wasn't sure what to think about that because it contradicts the other quote. But besides that, it doesn't mention evidence. quote: Erm, yes.
It says that faith is a belief that the eyewitness accounts are true, not that they are evidence upon which to build faith. That's pedantry. Eye witness accounts are evidence. They have faith that the evidence is true.
I don't understand. Are you interpreting warrant as some kind of synonym for evidence? I'm saying warrant means 'some reason' and quoting the relevant part where warrant is described as:
quote: Well, if that's the way it looks to you and I haven't changed your mind in this post then I don't suppose there's anything more I could say that might convince you otherwise. You could just define evidence, maybe that would help. Better than listing things that you think are or are not evidence and hoping I'll get to it that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Ok, so now we have written words combined with personal testimony make it evidence so we still agree it takes more than something being written down to make it evidence. Good. No, just the written testimony is sufficient.
But surely you are beginning to see how bizarre and essentially useless this insistence that evidence can be anything at all is? Why don't you tell me?
Do you really think that if Pullman tells us that all people have personal daemons and then writes it down it becomes evidence that people have personal daemons? Not exactly. If Pullman tells us that he has seen some personal daemons then that is evidence htat personal daemons exist. Unless he also claims to have seen all people's personal daemon's it can't be evidence that all people have personal daemons. Though if he claims all people he has encountered have them - that at least opens up an inductive argument possibility.
I hate argument by dictionary But you're going to do it anyway, I see. Well let's play
quote: Maybe dictionaries really aren't going to help the argument
quote:Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Pullman says daemon's are real.But people say all sorts of things are real and Pullman is an author of fiction. Also it runs counter to what we know about how energies and forces interact. Thus other evidence defeat's Pullman's testimony.
In short, to be worthy of the epithet 'evidence' the words need to be properly capable of supporting or denying a claim or allegation. Of course, you then run into the issue of explaining what can be considered 'properly capable of supporting' some hypothesis. If you think you can answer this uncontroversially I'm confident you are mistaken.
Merely saying or writing something is not evidence of anything other than something has been said or written. I think it is untenable to suppose that if someone you know and trust to be honest tells you they saw a rainbow today, you wouldn't consider this evidence that a rainbow was visible today. You might not accept it as absolutely true, but you would surely be reasonable in saying a trustworthy reporter is capable of supporting the hypothesis. Otherwise you risk throwing out way too many things that can reasonably called evidence. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Richard Bauckham is a good historian on this issue (he is a major expert on just about everything concerning Early Christian Origins)
Here is an example of where he is referenced.
quote: Put this into search engines " richard bauckham gopels history witness " The first link leads to a download. https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/9472/download?token=w4dpdMvp
quote: Also " ancti marcionite prologue peter italy mark "
[quote]
Anonymous, The "Anti-Marcionite" prologues to the gospels Anonymous, The "Anti-Marcionite" prologues to the gospels The "Anti-Marcionite" prologues to the gospels. ... Mark recorded, who was called Colobodactylus, because he had fingers that were too small for the height ... After the death of Peter himself, the same man wrote this gospel in the parts of Italy. The Latin prologues. - TextExcavation. The Latin prologues.Aug 23, 2007 ... The anti-Marcionite and Monarchian prologues, presented in the original Greek and ... Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together ... The Lucan prologue, extant in both Greek and Latin. ... that according to Matthew in Judea, but that according to Mark in Italy, instigated by the ... Anti-Marcionite Prologues - Early Christian Writings Anti-Marcionite ProloguesAlso with respect to the so-called Anti-Marcionite Gospel Prologues serious ... Only Prologues for Mark, Luke, and John are extant; the Prologue for Luke is also ... then
quote:then quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Regardless, one would not fair well in either the Catholic or heretic camps if one was to say you were skeptical of the Bible But that never happened anyway. All this is some fantasy of yours. And now I get that what you mean by not performing one's duties is refusing to do somerhing that violates Christian belief. Yes that has been happening in VERY recent times due to anti-Christian forces in society that are returning us to paganism. You won't enjoy it when it's in full force, that's for sure. But enjoy your delusion for the time being. Meanwhile this is not the subject. The subject is supposedly people suffering because of rejecting the Bible and you have completely failed to identify when and where that has ever even happened. Certainly "throughout European history" is NOT where it ever happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Percy writes: Regarding John and the miracles specifically, I think I've already explained this. The suspension of natural laws renders it false immediately. So its just incredulity that natural laws can be suspended? Yes, all this is just an argument from incredulity, not worth a minute of the time spent on it. Wouldn't matter how much testimony John recorded of all the miracles Jesus did, they are a priori dismissed by this presupposition that "the suspension of natural laws renders [all such claims] false." John's evidence or any evidence at all in favor of miracles is absolutely pre-empted. So let the honest people who are capable of recognizing when evidence overthrows their prejudices make use of John's evidence and not bother with the percies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Modulous writes: No, just the written testimony is sufficient. Right, so only written testimony is evidence. Good, we agree that it takes more than something being written down to make it evidence.
Maybe dictionaries really aren't going to help the argument I think they're doing just fine, they all - including yours - say the same thing; that evidence is something that supports a position. None of them tell us that it's pretty much anything written down or said. And as for tesimony.....
quote: Of course, you then run into the issue of explaining what can be considered 'properly capable of supporting' some hypothesis. Yes, we create evidential standards. In law the facts can not be entered if they don't meet that standard, even weak evidence such as the personal testimony you mention is reinforced by requiring the witness to swear under oath that it is true with severe penalties for lying. In science, evidence has to reach a standard before it is publishable and so on. In real life we understand that not all statements are equal and some are so obviously not evidence of anything, those we dismiss immediately, like the idea that because Pullman wrote about daemons that it become evidence of daemons. As you've demonstrated several time by having to qualify my simple statement that writing something down doesn't make it evidence with additions to strengthen the claim - such as if it becomes testimony or if it's a written statement of an eye witness account of seeing a daemon etc. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Although you are a likable fellow and although I have no reason to believe that you are going to hell (if a hell exists) the fact is that you believe with a degree of evidence that religion and belief are on the way out---for good. I, on the other hand, believe in a Creator of all seen and unseen Who wants a relationship with all of us---specifically me. In that light, my views and beliefs on religion and Jesus are admittedly selfish---while yours are seemingly based on a belief that all of us---myself included---will be better off without our silly beliefs.
I honestly think and believe that your motives are pure and noble. I believe (and hope) that you are wrong about Jesus...as I do Carrier, Dawkins, Hitchens, and others. You have done well, however. I believe that if you are right, I won't totally die. I just won't feel as confidant or comfortable...but I suppose I should be less selfish and think about you, your family and kids. Perhaps what you believe will actually be better for them than what I believe. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
In Babylon, nearly 4000 years ago a dissatisfied customer accused a merchant named Ea-Nasir of delivering sub-standard copper. We know this because we have the original complaint
This is perfectly good evidence for the existence of the copper trade, for recognising that the quality of goods was a big issue even then and for the existence of a copper trader using the name Ea-Nasir. It cannot tell us who was in the wrong since we have only one side of the story, and no other evidence. In short simplistic rules will not work. It is necessary to weigh written evidence carefully, to consider the ways in which it is likely to be unreliable. Thus, while the complaining customer may have exaggerated the problems in order to demand a refund, it is rather less likely that the complaint is addressed to a fictitious trader or over a delivery that never happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
PaulK writes: In Babylon, nearly 4000 years ago a dissatisfied customer accused a merchant named Ea-Nasir of delivering sub-standard copper. We know this because we have the original complaintThis is perfectly good evidence for the existence of the copper trade It's only evidence because we know that Babylon is a real place and we know the history of the area and we can carbon date the tablet and so on. We have multiple sources and levels of corroborating evidence into which this clay tablet information comfortably fits. That's all fine and dandy. Now if Ea-Nasir instead of writing about a perfectly normal event, he'd written that he routinely walks around with a personal daemon, is that evidence of daemons?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: Now if Ea-Nasir instead of writing about a perfectly normal event, he'd written that he routinely walks around with a personal daemon, is that evidence of daemons? It would be much the same evidence. It would be evidence that Ea-Nasir believed strongly enough in daemons to write about it. It would be evidence that Ea-Nasir was comfortable admitting that he walked around with a personal daemon. It would be evidence that the term daemon was one that was commonly known at the time. It would be evidence that someone who called himself Ea-Nasir wrote something and evidence that the name Ea-Nasir was something others could identify. It would still be good written evidence, not of the actual existence of daemons or even the actual existence of Ea-Nasir but of the fact the term was recognized and in common use; an example of evidence showing the beliefs and ethos of the period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Clay isn’t exactly a good materal for carbon dating. As for the rest, if we had little information about the region the tablets value as evidence would increase. If we had contradictory evidence then it would be hurt - but you would need contradictory evidence, not simple ignorance.
quote: Ea-Nasir didn’t write the tablet as should be perfectly clear. However, strictly speaking it would be evidence of daemons at that time. Just not good enough evidence to be worth taking seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Jar writes: It would be much the same evidence. It would be evidence that Ea-Nasir believed strongly enough in daemons to write about it. It would be evidence that Ea-Nasir was comfortable admitting that he walked around with a personal daemon. It would be evidence that the term daemon was one that was commonly known at the time. It would be evidence that someone who called himself Ea-Nasir wrote something and evidence that the name Ea-Nasir was something others could identify. Well no, Ea-Nazir might simply be writing a story. A fantasy. Or he might be a charlaton that found he could gain political power or money by claining he had a daemon to protect him. But the question I asked was not whether it was evidence of someone writing something - but whether it was evidence of the daemons he was writing about.
It would still be good written evidence, not of the actual existence of daemons or even the actual existence of Ea-Nasir but of the fact the term was recognized and in common use; an example of evidence showing the beliefs and ethos of the period. Well there you go. Writing something down - like Pullman's daemon - does not provide evidence of the daemon. Now apply that to our orignal argument about biblical events. In the marriage feast at Cana - or any of the miracles in the bible - does the fact that an unknown author wrote a story about water being changed into wine provide evidence that water was changed into wine? Of course it doesn't, at best, all it does is make a claim which evidence has to be provided to support it if we are to take it in anyway seriously.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Right, so only written testimony is evidence. Good, we agree that it takes more than something being written down to make it evidence. Well, I said it before (Message 690), I'll say it again. In history - eyewitness testimony, claimed eyewitness testimony, and histories that say they are written after interviewing witnesses etc etc., are evidence.
Yes, we create evidential standards. In law the facts can not be entered if they don't meet that standard, even weak evidence such as the personal testimony you mention is reinforced by requiring the witness to swear under oath that it is true with severe penalties for lying. In science, evidence has to reach a standard before it is publishable and so on. And in history we use the standards, some of which I mentioned in Message 655 since we can't ask the witness to swear to it, punish them or to cross examine them.
In real life we understand that not all statements are equal and some are so obviously not evidence of anything, those we dismiss immediately, like the idea that because Pullman wrote about daemons that it become evidence of daemons. As you've demonstrated several time by having to qualify my simple statement that writing something down doesn't make it evidence with additions to strengthen the claim - such as if it becomes testimony or if it's a written statement of an eye witness account of seeing a daemon etc. Well, my position all along is that it has to be of the form of a testimony, to be evidence of the things testified to. I was just correcting your misapprehensions about by my position.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: Well there you go. Writing something down - like Pullman's daemon - does not provide evidence of the daemon. Now apply that to our orignal argument about biblical events. In the marriage feast at Cana - or any of the miracles in the bible - does the fact that an unknown author wrote a story about water being changed into wine provide evidence that water was changed into wine? Of course it doesn't, at best, all it does is make a claim which evidence has to be provided to support it if we are to take it in anyway seriously. Too, too funny. Have you ever read anything I have posted here at EvC? It certainly seems that you have not. Edited by jar, : there is no 7 in funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Modulous writes: I was just correcting your misapprehensions about by my position. Right.......got it Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024