Burden of proof for god's existence in a legal setting?
29 Nov 2011, 7:55 am
LKL wrote:
Do we even have verifiable, same-time 3rd hand evidence for Jesus' existence? IIrc the earliest known documents that mention him are from decades after his death. If my parents told me, 'when I was a kid, I had a friend who had a friend who could walk on water,' I would take it with a pretty significant dose of proverbial salt.
I'd probably end up accepting they had a friend though, and that the walking on water was some delusion, magic trick, or story that went around.
Yeah, definitely take Jesus claims with a lot of salt. Pepper too.
29 Nov 2011, 5:24 pm
So here's the basics, as I see them:
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
_________________
--James
29 Nov 2011, 6:09 pm
LKL wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Why is the discussion about the existence of Jesus, when the title is about the existence of god?
because it was brought up on the first page as a 'slam dunk' by a Christian using a questionable claim.
Meh. Let's debate the definition of the word, "if"...
29 Nov 2011, 11:25 pm
visagrunt wrote:
So here's the basics, as I see them:
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
Documented history could provide evidence if such documents were readily available. To most of the population they are not as it's been mentioned the sources are old and in the process of being preserved.
30 Nov 2011, 1:06 am
cw10 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
So here's the basics, as I see them:
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
Documented history could provide evidence if such documents were readily available. To most of the population they are not as it's been mentioned the sources are old and in the process of being preserved.
Hi cw10,
A deja vu reminded me to mention how fragile "factual" history often turns out.
One "lost" document, "The Autobiography of Augustus", and the book "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" by Edmund Morris (1999), are two examples.
One of the works might have had "fictional" individuals in the work, the other work had at least one fictional individual in the work, that is, the 1999 work.
Wikipedia cites the 1999 work too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch:_A_M ... ald_Reagan
If, and when, only fragments of the 1999 work remain, how are the fictional parts to be identified as fictional?
Tadzio
30 Nov 2011, 4:45 am
LKL wrote:
History and myth got intertwined pretty quickly back in those days.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
If you want to go through the argument for the resurrection start a new thread, I will be happy to put forward some stuff.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
30 Nov 2011, 5:42 am
91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
History and myth got intertwined pretty quickly back in those days.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
If you want to go through the argument for the resurrection start a new thread, I will be happy to put forward some stuff.
Hi LKL,
91 posted another link to William Lane Craig saying ""With the collapse of verificationism": _____So Anyone Can Fill In Any Nonsense From Craig They Want, Since Verification Is Not Required, and in fact prohibited by "True-Believers" off in La-La Land.
"Properly understanding our culture is important because the gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of the current cultural milieu. A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel. But you may as well tell the secularist to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! Christians who depreciate natural theology because 'no one comes to faith through intellectual arguments' are therefore tragically shortsighted."
http://www.carnivalsage.com/articles/0- ... craig.html
"Collapse of Verificationism" exploitations: http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sour ... icationism
Tadzio
P.S.: In William Lane Craig's "Response", about the middle down the web-page, linked by 91's link, poorly shielded in B.S. technicalities: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=9089
30 Nov 2011, 8:26 am
Verificationism is dead and has been for decades now. As a school of philosophical inquiry, it is self refuting, since the verification principle cannot itself be verified. Verificationism is a specific subset of epistemology, Craig does not ignore it, he like just about every modern philosopher, considered it dead, for the reason I just mentioned. You should stop just slinging mud.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
30 Nov 2011, 9:17 am
Tadzio wrote:
Hi cw10,
A deja vu reminded me to mention how fragile "factual" history often turns out.
One "lost" document, "The Autobiography of Augustus", and the book "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" by Edmund Morris (1999), are two examples.
One of the works might have had "fictional" individuals in the work, the other work had at least one fictional individual in the work, that is, the 1999 work.
Wikipedia cites the 1999 work too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch:_A_M ... ald_Reagan
If, and when, only fragments of the 1999 work remain, how are the fictional parts to be identified as fictional?
Tadzio
A deja vu reminded me to mention how fragile "factual" history often turns out.
One "lost" document, "The Autobiography of Augustus", and the book "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" by Edmund Morris (1999), are two examples.
One of the works might have had "fictional" individuals in the work, the other work had at least one fictional individual in the work, that is, the 1999 work.
Wikipedia cites the 1999 work too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch:_A_M ... ald_Reagan
If, and when, only fragments of the 1999 work remain, how are the fictional parts to be identified as fictional?
Tadzio
Therein lies the paradox. In this case I think logical arguments would have to be hotly debated until everyone could agree on the framework behind the plausibility evidence. Logical frameworks are often inferred through indirect evidence when many minds working on the problem come at it from different ways of thinking. At least in philosophy. Essentially I'd look for a good thesis on the evidence. A worldwide wiki of plausible evidence pulled from whatever sources are available. Whatever is found would be put through the ringer and could foreseeably be given a score based on the strength of the opinion or plausibility of the claim.
30 Nov 2011, 2:09 pm
Some thoughts on the matter by great legal minds:
Quote:
Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice in England, asserts: “In its favor as a living truth there
exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no
intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.”
John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772–1863) is recognized as one of the greatest legal
minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attorney General of
Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected High Steward of the
University of Cambridge. He challenges, “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such
evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.”
Hugo Grotius was a noted “jurist and scholar whose works are of fundamental importance in
international law,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. He wrote Latin elegies at the age of
eight and entered Leiden University at eleven. Considered “the father of international law,” he
wrote The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) in which he legally defended the historical fact of
the Resurrection.
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity
Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the
subject of evidence. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty
of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of
Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the
University of London. In Anderson’s text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the
standard evidences for the Resurrection and asks, “How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be
denied?” Anderson further emphasizes, “Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and
women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it.”
Sir Edward Clark, K. C., observes:
As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first
Easter day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I
have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on
evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The gospel evidence
for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as a testimony of
truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.
Irwin H. Linton was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he challenges his fellow lawyers “by every acid test known
to the law...to examine the case for the Bible just as they would any important matter submitted to
their professional attention by a client... .” He believes that the evidence for Christianity is
“overwhelming” and that at least “three independent and converging lines of proof,” each of which
“is conclusive in itself,” establish the truth of the Christian faith. Linton observed that “the logical,
historical... proofs of... Christianity are so indisputable that I have found them to arrest the surprised
attention of just about every man to whom I have presented them....” He further argues the
Resurrection “is not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best
proved fact of all history, but it is so supported that it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of
proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain.” And that, even among lawyers, “he who
does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in Christ and the Scriptures has
never read, has forgotten, or never been able to weigh—and certainly is utterly unable to refute—
the irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests....”
He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such a variety of
independent and converging proofs that “it has been said again and again by great lawyers that
they cannot but be regarded as proved under the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest
American and English courts.”
Simon Greenleaf was the author of the classic three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of
Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith “is still considered the greatest single
authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.” Greenleaf himself is considered
one of the greatest authorities on common-law evidence in Western history.
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an “overwhelming case for the
Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence” and that “His Resurrection has
led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute....”
(cf., Thomas Sherlock’s Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which places the
Resurrection in a legally argued forum and in the words of lawyer Irwin Linton, “will give anyone so
reading it the comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that can be said against the proof of
the central fact of our faith and also how utterly every such attack can be met and answered.” At
the end of the legal battle one understands why, “The jury returned a verdict in favor of the
testimony establishing the fact of Christ’s resurrection.”)
exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no
intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.”
John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772–1863) is recognized as one of the greatest legal
minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attorney General of
Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected High Steward of the
University of Cambridge. He challenges, “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such
evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.”
Hugo Grotius was a noted “jurist and scholar whose works are of fundamental importance in
international law,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. He wrote Latin elegies at the age of
eight and entered Leiden University at eleven. Considered “the father of international law,” he
wrote The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) in which he legally defended the historical fact of
the Resurrection.
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity
Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the
subject of evidence. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty
of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of
Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the
University of London. In Anderson’s text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the
standard evidences for the Resurrection and asks, “How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be
denied?” Anderson further emphasizes, “Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and
women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it.”
Sir Edward Clark, K. C., observes:
As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first
Easter day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I
have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on
evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The gospel evidence
for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as a testimony of
truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.
Irwin H. Linton was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he challenges his fellow lawyers “by every acid test known
to the law...to examine the case for the Bible just as they would any important matter submitted to
their professional attention by a client... .” He believes that the evidence for Christianity is
“overwhelming” and that at least “three independent and converging lines of proof,” each of which
“is conclusive in itself,” establish the truth of the Christian faith. Linton observed that “the logical,
historical... proofs of... Christianity are so indisputable that I have found them to arrest the surprised
attention of just about every man to whom I have presented them....” He further argues the
Resurrection “is not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best
proved fact of all history, but it is so supported that it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of
proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain.” And that, even among lawyers, “he who
does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in Christ and the Scriptures has
never read, has forgotten, or never been able to weigh—and certainly is utterly unable to refute—
the irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests....”
He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such a variety of
independent and converging proofs that “it has been said again and again by great lawyers that
they cannot but be regarded as proved under the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest
American and English courts.”
Simon Greenleaf was the author of the classic three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of
Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith “is still considered the greatest single
authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.” Greenleaf himself is considered
one of the greatest authorities on common-law evidence in Western history.
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an “overwhelming case for the
Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence” and that “His Resurrection has
led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute....”
(cf., Thomas Sherlock’s Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which places the
Resurrection in a legally argued forum and in the words of lawyer Irwin Linton, “will give anyone so
reading it the comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that can be said against the proof of
the central fact of our faith and also how utterly every such attack can be met and answered.” At
the end of the legal battle one understands why, “The jury returned a verdict in favor of the
testimony establishing the fact of Christ’s resurrection.”)
source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/faith/pdfs/Resurrection.pdf
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
30 Nov 2011, 6:48 pm
91 wrote:
Verificationism is dead and has been for decades now. As a school of philosophical inquiry, it is self refuting, since the verification principle cannot itself be verified. Verificationism is a specific subset of epistemology, Craig does not ignore it, he like just about every modern philosopher, considered it dead, for the reason I just mentioned. You should stop just slinging mud.
Hi 91,
You cite me often for not "being to the forum", with this forum being "Burden of Proof....In a legal setting", but you continue to defend your claimed "Verificationism is dead and has been for decades now".
Today's "legal settings" holds "verificationism as dead"?
That is certainly balderdash. Legal settings demand more "verfication" of evidence and satisfied legal standards dealing with reapeatedly verified realities more now than ever before. Of course, individuals and groups who don't wish many of their actions, impacting other people, to be subjected to any valid and objective legal standards with the slighest degree of any manner involving "verification" of legal facts. (Even to the extremes of "Santa Claus told his "agent" to "do it" with acts of violence, as a "get out of jail for free" defense, that can not be challenged and/or verified as baseless under any ridiculous fanatic's doctrine of "verification is dead" for jurisprudence in legal settings).
Next, the "word game" of the elements of "Verificationism" will be claimed someting else, or a "new & improved" version of the "Verifiability Principle", which invalidates "The Encylopedia of Philosophy" whenever a "Craig-ism" of his, or his cult followers of, twisted splinter group's usages of "Christian Apologetics". Such questionable practices are doing the more generalized groupings of "Christian Apologetics" potentially spreading damage. I previously cited a person's publications critical of the book you referred me to, to "correct" what you held as my "wrong" line of reasonning, expressing such concerns of this "spreading damage" to Christian apologetics.
Craig is not like "every modern philosopher". Craig is like a narrow group as of "The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture", much as:
HerrGrim said:
HerrGrimm wrote:
91 wrote:
Craig is not s 'promoter' of intelligent design, he is agnostic towards it; but open to their claim that a design inference is a valid philosophical conclusion. You just named emotional topics in an attempt to throw as much mud as possible on his position.
He is a fellow at The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, the major ID advocacy group in America (which is missing from that list you gave, although I am not sure how much a CV covers).
Craig also is at Talbot School of Theology, with a doctrinal statement which states:
Quote:
The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.
and
Quote:
Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.
I guess you should define what 'agnostic' really is. Does Craig not believe in Talbot's doctrinal statement?
You have cited sources to me of your large citations, with the very misnomer of "Reasonible Faith", and when I cite them back to you for clarification & further explanation (since membership is required as a low number of "clicks are used"), you call your very own material being used as "slinging mud". To me, the following is much worse than mud, and you still have failed to clarify and/or explaine your citing me to such as a website containing much as:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
From William Lane Craig's postings at: sourced:::reasonablefaith-dot-org:::sourced
You also called your statement of "Here is a good example of how atheists mischaracterize Dr. Craig", with my amateur attempts of using the website poster program here, posting a different video "adverse" to Doctorate Craig, as being "used" by me eliciting your response "You changed the video in that quote, very dishonest...", as if this video is not a mischaracterization in your view of Craig, and you didn't want "verification" put into practice:
Tadzio wrote:
Hi DC,
Here's the "Terrel Rotation" paper again. It's "difficult" to understand compared to popular myths like "Santa Clause". So, here also is (5) "The Man on the Street and Presentism", since "keeping it 'worm-in-the-brain' simple" is might ruin WLC's shell-game:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8836/4/ ... ignals.pdf
http://www.guspepper.net/electro/Segund ... /Funez.pdf
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m3 ... rell1.html
Tadzio
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0
[/youtube]
http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-L ... 7752136532
Here's the "Terrel Rotation" paper again. It's "difficult" to understand compared to popular myths like "Santa Clause". So, here also is (5) "The Man on the Street and Presentism", since "keeping it 'worm-in-the-brain' simple" is might ruin WLC's shell-game:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8836/4/ ... ignals.pdf
http://www.guspepper.net/electro/Segund ... /Funez.pdf
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m3 ... rell1.html
Tadzio
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0
[/youtube]
http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-L ... 7752136532
Please do not prescribe your own labels applied to yourself by yourself as recommended by you to me.
Tadzio
30 Nov 2011, 7:59 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Some thoughts on the matter by great legal minds:
source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/faith/pdfs/Resurrection.pdf
source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/faith/pdfs/Resurrection.pdf
The problem is that this is just citing people who happened to favor a position, and thus isn't very plausible. I mean, even great legal minds will have a kooky position somewhere sometimes. This isn't to say that this explains all of these people, but, the real issue will be legal principles. And yeah... the courts are just not going to accept these issues. (Even further, it has to be recognized that many of these figures are before the rise of critical Biblical scholarship)
30 Nov 2011, 8:08 pm
91 wrote:
Verificationism is dead and has been for decades now. As a school of philosophical inquiry, it is self refuting, since the verification principle cannot itself be verified. Verificationism is a specific subset of epistemology, Craig does not ignore it, he like just about every modern philosopher, considered it dead, for the reason I just mentioned. You should stop just slinging mud.
Yeah, it is correct that verificationism is considered dead. It is ALSO correct that people have filled the gaps with some degree of nonsense. Reformed Epistemology is to some extent kind of an example, as presupposing the existence of God as an epistemological position really won't fly if there is such widespread disagreement on so many details here.
30 Nov 2011, 8:26 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Yeah, it is correct that verificationism is considered dead. It is ALSO correct that people have filled the gaps with some degree of nonsense. Reformed Epistemology is to some extent kind of an example, as presupposing the existence of God as an epistemological position really won't fly if there is such widespread disagreement on so many details here.
I talk about verificationism and you take an opportunity to swipe at reformed epistemology... this is just another addition a very long and tedious trend your arguments have developed. Whenever you find yourself being pushed off of a topic, you inevitably change the subject.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
30 Nov 2011, 8:43 pm
91 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Yeah, it is correct that verificationism is considered dead. It is ALSO correct that people have filled the gaps with some degree of nonsense. Reformed Epistemology is to some extent kind of an example, as presupposing the existence of God as an epistemological position really won't fly if there is such widespread disagreement on so many details here.
I talk about verificationism and you take an opportunity to swipe at reformed epistemology... this is just another addition a very long and tedious trend your arguments have developed. Whenever you find yourself being pushed off of a topic, you inevitably change the subject.
Hi 91,
You go off topic, then blame everyone else for changing the "subject". Distinguishing between a "topic" and
a "subject" is a very weak ploy of polemics. Previously, you did just the opposite between "subject" versus "topic" polemics!! !
Tadzio
30 Nov 2011, 9:35 pm
91 wrote:
I talk about verificationism and you take an opportunity to swipe at reformed epistemology... this is just another addition a very long and tedious trend your arguments have developed. Whenever you find yourself being pushed off of a topic, you inevitably change the subject.
Hunh?
91, there is no evidence that I was pushed off of a topic. I agreed with your statement. I agreed with your statement before you made it. I qualified it, to point out that this doesn't mean theists have taken this in a direction he'd consider plausible, so that way Tadzio doesn't think you're playing some scam. Tadzio's totally justified in disbelieving anything you say.
So, really, 91, you're just confused. Especially since the last thread wasn't an example of this anyway. Some people are quicker to make connections between various ideas than other people are. As a result, they are more likely to pull in these various considerations and try to weave them together. I don't see this as a negative thing, rather, I see this as a strength. I would imagine that you actually don't have this strength, or at least not in abundance. For the most part, your cognitive style has focused on finding authorities, and semi-worshiping them, but you don't really seem to have a strong understanding of how things like logic work and you likely are trying to play to a strength of yours, but the issue is that many people can kind of see through this a bit and so it doesn't work that well.
