Fellow Christians, I have questions

Post Reply New Topic

False assumption. Empiricism refers to the idea that ONLY propositional knowledge is useful. In other words, "All knowledge of the world is empirical." This argument fails on logical grounds because it is not itself an empirical statement. You're going through my post line-by-line trying to refute every single little thing I said for whatever reason, but you're COMPLETELY missing the point. You can't say that "All knowledge of the world is empirical" because you cannot determine that "all knowledge of the world is empirical" through the senses.

If you CAN say that "ALL knowledge of the world is empirical," you need to provide evidence through the senses. But if the senses are not sufficient to prove that statement, and they aren't, then the statement itself is self-refuting and absurd.

Ruveyn stated that all real knowledge is physical, yet ruveyn has no physical way to know that. Once again, the argument in question is absurd.

Regarding the Bible--those things contained within the Bible are hardly things people would just make up to support their religious beliefs. To say that the Bible isn't admissible as evidence is to not really understand what the Bible really is. The kinds of collected evidence, rather than being hearsay and so forth, are the kinds of eyewitness statements modern-day lawyers would be perfectly comfortable using in a court of law. Just because you don't "like" something doesn't make it less true. You might as well say that biographical accounts and history textbooks that detail the lives of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington are about fictional characters and written solely for the purpose for promoting a strictly American viewpoint. The USA might as well not even exist, nor should we find any justification to say that the USA ever even SHOULD exist and that the Constitution is a complete fake. But we DON'T say that, and you'd be soundly humiliated should you make those kinds of arguments in a US History class.

While the Bible does provide justification for certain beliefs, assuming that it is a work of fiction from the outset suggests a lack of real thinking on the part of the one making the argument.

Intuition, cognition, and so forth are merely part of ONE way of knowing anything. Understanding or building a code of morality (just as one example) ARE based on non-empirical knowledge. Empiricism fails as a reliable way to get this information.

Another area where empiricism fails is actually in science itself. Data collection, for example is non-empirical. You don't know or understand how to collect data from the senses. You know how based upon a learned skill. You don't get "random sampling" or "double-blind" testing from the senses. Yet we DO know that the data collection methods such as those provide reliable information, hence why we rely on those things.

So you can see, unless you're just stuck on it, that empiricism IS false. If you take a more moderate stance, which most people in reality actually do, you find a moderate rationalism to be much more effective than empiricism. That particular doctrine allows for empirical knowledge as useful and valid and in no way rejects all of science, its discoveries, modern medicine, and so on. You're going to a lot of extremes to "prove" me wrong here, but you haven't "proven" that I said any of those things you suggest that I say. I could go on and on defending my position, but I think it will be more worthwhile if I just wait until you learn to read.

Last edited by AngelRho on 17 Oct 2010, 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

In fairness, one could say empiricism is incomplete. There are questions that seem to be meaningful to some that cannot be answered or resolved exclusively or empirical/logical grounds. May there should be a Goedel type Incompleteness Theorem pertaining to human knowledge. To wit that even if we have infinite intelligence and the time to exercise it there would be questions that could not be answered, resolved or decided purely on empirical/logical grounds. This is a possibility.

In the meantime the scientific empirical hypothetical-deductive approach is the best way we know of knowing about the world.

ruveyn

I say that scientific empiricism, is likely the best epistemological justification, other stuff are likely to be a bunch of crap.


well, my position on this would be more like this, provide evidence of your claim that can be repeatedly verified and examined to be considered a fact, otherwise it is just a bunch of ideas, opinions and wishes.


Not really, eyewitness testimonies are not reliable, there is the problem with people's perceptions, memory, personal bias, regarding their testimony, and practically an eyewitness testimony is just a lay opinion. There have been cases, apparantely a great deal, of convictions from misidentification, which have been solved later through DNA evidence, thus, scientific evidence is a better way to prove a crime rather than basing it solely on witness testimonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness ... ness_Error
http://innocenceproject.org/understand/ ... cation.php


Regarding the Bible, witness testimonies seem even less credible, given the background knowledge, culture, and socioeconomic factors of the so called witnesses, thus chance of error is great.


This is the case with the issue regarding evolution vs creationism, creationists reject evolution because, in the end, they don't like it.



Not really, it provides justification but not something that can be actually verified, the Bible is more of a combination of mythology and history, so there are actually real historic references but not entirely, I mean, a flood might have happened, but the history of it would have been distorted and the cause imagined, the level of knowledge back then justifies its explanation, and having earlier writings as a source, not to mention that if the Bible is partly based on oral tradition.


Scientific empiricism is the best way to get to the facts, there doesn't seem to be any other way to get better accurate results, we already know the issue about witness testimonies.


The senses? you are talking about philosophical empiricsm here, not scientific empiricism.


I think I can read pretty much, just that I don't and can't share your pointview and that you seem to need to put your assetions in a better way than just stating X=false, the issue is that you said empiricism is false, so that implicates that the scientific method is false, thus giving false results. I mean, if I claim that X is false, then I also claim that X shouldn't be trusted at all and that X is crap.

Empiricism is empiricism, whether it is scientific or not. Science, actually, IS based upon observations made with the senses. The only way to make observation is through the senses. And since science depends upon that which is observable by the senses, it cannot make decisions about those things which are not observable with the senses. Thus the tendency in science is to either ignore that which it cannot observe or assume that those things do not exist.

That is not a "failing" of science by any means. All it DOES mean is that science is one means to one end, no more and no less. Further, empiricism is only reliant on ONE particular kind of knowledge. Propositional knowledge is perfectly appropriate for dealing with empirical, physical FACTS. But you cannot ignore that there are other kinds of knowledge useful for dealing with other kinds of things.

I'll often allude to the FACT that I play the piano (among other instruments). Knowing how to play piano is not empirical knowledge. It is skill knowledge. It is something I've developed over a long period of time by various combinations of self-guided study and private instruction with experienced pianists "in the field" and a university professor. Some things I can do I was never taught--improvisation, both jazz and free-form, and other useful skills such as playing by ear and interpreting non-traditional music notation such as lead sheets and lyric sheets, using both standard chord notation and Nashville numbers. What's more is that I can assimilate much of what I hear others play into my own personal playing style, something we all do when handling commercialized music styles and jazz, and I can even take my own improvisations and write them out in standard music notation. I can even teach a sufficiently skilled keyboard player how to do the same things I do, and I can reasonably expect that someone who strictly specializes in piano performance ought to do this better than I can since my interests and abilities lie elsewhere. Propositional knowledge can tell me a lot about, say, triadic chord structures and dissonance or musical form, which does make some musical decisions easier. But relying on physical knowledge of a lead sheet, which doesn't really tell you much by the nature of lead sheets, will not give you the knowledge to make judgment calls on what chord voicings to use or what rhythmic/melodic figures to use for a particular style. Even in Baroque music, you have a type of keyboard improvisation-based "comping" notation called "figured bass," which only gives you the proper voicing for a particular chord. It does NOT tell you whether to use a block style, Alberti bass, and so on. The decisions to play in one style or another ultimately lies in what the performer knows (non-empirically) about period performance practices and various musical styles. In commercial music (pop, rock, folk, country, hip-hop, etc.) HOW a person plays, especially in an ensemble with horns, guitars, bass, drums, multiple keyboards, much of what one plays within a given arrangement depends on intuition or even instinct. I perform regularly, nearly every week, in a Christian worship service with multiple instrumentalists--one or two guitarists, a bass, and pipe organ/synth. Our organist has experience as a university professor and is WELL-versed in classical/baroque organ music. But since much of what we do lies within the area of contemporary praise and worship music, he tends to strain somewhat at finding his role within the group. My biggest complaint is that our worship leader doesn't push him to play anything on the synth other than a string patch. For the kind of music we play, having a big, ensemble string sound is not always appropriate. In other words, he hasn't developed the know-how or instinctive ability to play contemporary styles.

I'm just using keyboard-playing as an example. Perhaps something you'll understand is preparing bacteria cultures in petri dishes. A nutrient-rich environment suitable for the growth of bacteria may stem from some empirical knowledge of what bacteria like to eat. But that knowledge doesn't give you the ability to make those preparations. Some are better than others, and it depends upon the skill of the preparer as to how well that will work.

Neurologists work with propositional knowledge all the time. But you wouldn't DARE work with a neuroSURGEON who only "knows a lot" about the brain. No, you want someone with a steady hand and high level of skill at what they do. That ability is something that comes with intensive practice over a long period of time. In fact, it's not uncommon that surgeons take up musical instruments or some fine motor development in the form of needlework, like knitting or embroidery to stay in practice. You can't simply get this from reading books or poring over Wikipedia. Propositional knowledge is USEFUL and NECESSARY, but it's NOT ENOUGH.

What is empiricism good for? Knowledge of the physical world, obviously--propositional knowledge. But people, even scientists themselves, USE non-empirical knowledge all the time, and I've described this in various ways.

I haven't even mentioned knowledge by acquaintance, but familiarity with people/things is another kind of non-empirical knowledge that is also useful. A typical internal medicine physician can, for example, prescribe a decongestant for a cold and antibiotics to fight off secondary infections of the sinuses. But the same doctor will be ill-equipped to diagnose and treat the same symptoms if they arise from chronic allergies. What he CAN do is refer you to a good allergist who DOES know how to test for specific allergens and prescribe an appropriate course of treatment for allergies. The internist can do this because of non-empirical knowledge, NOT empirical knowledge.

You can show up in the emergency room of your local hospital complaining of chest pains, and they might call an attending cardiologist to determine whether you are having a heart-attack. What if he finds nothing wrong with you? What then? He might be familiar with gastro-intestinal ailments that mimic pain associated with heart-attacks and suggest you self-treat with calcium carbonate. But what if your problem is more than that? It could be a chronic condition like acid reflux and OTC antacids just aren't enough. So the cardiologist might rather refer you to a specialist in gastro-intestinal medicine who CAN give you a more accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.

What qualifies a cardiologist to make that call? He knows enough to tell you that, as far as he's qualified to tell you, nothing is wrong. Remember, science ignores or denies that for which there is no evidence. But YOU know good and well you feel chest pain. So either the doctor is wrong and something IS wrong or you're delusional, which you may very well be. There is NOTHING at all wrong with a cardiologist who finds nothing at all wrong with your heart to refer you to someone who can look at your stomach. If the stomach doc can't find anything wrong, maybe you ARE delusional, or maybe it's something else for which a stomach doc is unqualified to diagnose. What you hope happens is somebody has a friend who has a friend who studied medicine with a guy who taught some other dude who is world-renowned for diagnosing and treating THIS kind of problem (whatever THIS turns out to be). Once again, we're dealing with non-empirical knowledge.

Now, I'm not a scientist myself, but I'm familiar enough with how medicine generally works to tell you that much. An actual physician can relate how it works much better than I can. A physician might also be qualified enough to tell you who to talk to about taking piano lessons, and he might even be able to treat maladies associated with excessive piano playing such as carpal-tunnel syndrome and tendinitis. But you wouldn't go to a physician to learn how to play piano, nor would you take lessons from me to learn how to fix an ingrown toenail. I AM, on the other hand, perfectly well qualified to teach you how to AVOID CTS or tendonitis and how to treat mild muscle and joint pain associated with repetitive motion in piano performance. I don't NEED a medical degree to tell you that any more than my paralegal wife NEEDS a degree to understand legal procedure. But I can't fix a chronic condition such as tendonitis any more than my wife can represent you in court!

Empiricism IS crap in the sense that there are more things to know than empirical, physical kinds of things you get through the senses, such as scientific observations. Much of what we know is not strictly propositional knowledge, but rather a combination or propositional knowledge, skill knowledge, and knowledge by acquaintance. To say in a strict sense that "empiricism is true" is false because that itself is NOT an empirical statement, thus it is self-refuting and absurd. We CAN know other things which are non-empirical, and I've already demonstrated that.

But because empiricism is false does not mean that empirical knowledge isn't useful or meaningful. There are different kinds of knowledge that we rely on, all of which are perfectly valid and true despite their non-empirical nature.

After 3 long posts by AngelRho, how is 'skill knowledge' relevant to problems like existence of god? Science / empiricism is still THE only way to treat the key assumptions of Christianity.

What evidence is there to support the idea that the miracles in the gospels and OT are eye witness accounts? Just because there are names in the account is not enough.

No, they are NOT.



Stick with the gospels because the gospels are the foundations of Christian faith, not the OT. The OT is simply the theological forerunner of what God revealed to us. Christ taught us something else that in many ways supersedes or cancels out parts of the Law.

The gospels are, by nature, either eyewitness accounts or collections of eyewitness accounts. The synoptic gospels are VERY similar. Matthew was called by Jesus and thus either personally witnessed those things he wrote down or got his information from the others who were likewise close to the source. I can't remember if Mark refers to John Mark or not, but there is little doubt that at the very least Mark was a close acquaintance of Peter, the disciple who often acted as the leader and spokesman for the disciples. In either case, Mark either personally witnessed those things or his writings were compiled from Peter's teachings.

Luke's gospel account comes more from the perspective of a skilled biographer and thus is the most thorough of the synoptic gospels. There are more stories in Luke about the miracles and Jesus' teachings. Luke's purpose was to set in writing those things that were well known by eyewitness sources and even existing written sources. Luke seems to have even been aware of Mark and quotes Mark. So we know that Mark must have been one of the earliest writings of the Christian faith. Any good history text will draw from actual sources such as eyewitnesses or available writings of the time. So if you dismiss Luke, you might as well declare modern day reviews of World War I that cite eyewitness accounts, textual sources already in existence, and written diplomatic treaties as unreliable information as to whether WWI even occurred at all, despite any inferences you might make from, say, later conflicts such as WWII. You might as well dismiss the rise of the NAZI regime, Hitler, and the holocaust on the grounds of lack of evidence! Modern day texts on the formation of the United States are even further removed, so you might as well write off the US Constitution as purely North American folklore. Luke was likely a close follower of Paul, who in turn had a direct experience and revelation of Christ Himself and, after conversion, faced earlier disciples of Jesus. Paul had a thorough Pharisaic knowledge of OT scripture and new enough about Christian "heresy" to hunt them down, kill them, and enjoy it. So it's not implausible or even unlikely that Luke had access to those who were close to the source, enough to write a sophisticated and thorough account of Jesus' gospel. Modern-day historians do no less.

That goes for the three synoptic gospels. John's account focuses more on the redemptive aspect of Christianity. Most likely John preached in Ephesus for most of his career and used the written sources that were already available at the time. This is evident because John leaves out a lot of the stories the synoptics included. The best guess for why this would be is those accounts would have been "understood" as having happened and John saw a need for thematic emphasis on salvation. The first verse of John reveals plainly who Jesus claimed to be: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 3:16 is oft quoted as a summation of God's love for the world and desire to save it. The differences in John are sometimes used to support Gnosticism, but taken as a whole John complements the synoptic gospels rather than contradicts them. There is scriptural evidence that James and John were often closer to Jesus than some of the others and hence John would have been able to make very significant contributions that others would not necessarily have been privy to.

Luke, or at the very least the same author of Luke's Gospel, also wrote Acts, which is a history of how the early church began. If Luke was a close acquaintance or traveling companion of Paul, he would have seen firsthand the earliest church-planting efforts among the Gentiles. The "we passages" indicate that not only was Luke aware of what others had told him from their experiences, but that he was himself involved at certain times.

The Pauline letters to various people and churches reveal much of what was going on in the church at that time, before the second century. You get a little taste of the squabbles among people within the church, the conflict within theology between the Gentile converts and the Judaizers (circumcision/non-circumcision and conversion first to Judaism and THEN Christianity), and hints of early church heresies. Apparently the church at Corinth was particularly bad because they organized a delegation to meet with Paul to discuss their problems and solutions to them, and we're pretty sure Paul wrote at least 4 letters to the Corinthians, not just the 2 letters that made it into the Biblical canon--one in particular that has been lost but was probably considerably harsh when taking into account Paul's typical writing style. These letters would have been among the first statements of theology of the Christian church throughout the known world. Considering that they were written sometime around the 60's, they would have been consistent with theology as it was known so soon after Jesus' ascension.

And considering how unfavorably certain key people are presented in Gospels and the Letters, it's hardly likely that information would have been fabricated for the sole purpose of promoting a new, fledgeling religion which was under close scrutiny and in constant danger of being wiped out. As I recall, Acts recounts discussions among Jewish leaders regarding other ideologies that at the time would have been described as "new religious movements." Each time those disciples were suppressed and scattered after the deposition of a popular leader. Christianity was the only "new movement" in which its followers were so willing to die for their faith and whose teachings were so unique that the Jewish religious leaders were forced to contend that the new sect MIGHT be from God!

So the Bible, if you actually bother to read it and analyze it, is more than "some holy book" or "religious text." It presents information in a very simple and honest format that doesn't gloss over anything, doesn't just tell us what we want to hear, and helps us understand the life and ministry of Christ and His followers. It is itself a collection of evidence not unlike witness-based testimony a prosecutor would collect for a criminal trial. Something that sets eyewitness accounts of the Bible apart from other accounts is that there were so many eyewitnesses. Not only do those accounts affirm each other, but they add depth and perspective to each other. No two people ever see the same thing from the same angle, so the multitude of accounts and variation from one to the next doesn't contradict the gospel message but rather provides a bigger picture.

An eyewitness of a crime might only see a man with a gun. But another eyewitness might recognize the gun as a Smith and Wesson 9 mm. Which was it? A gun? Or a Smith and Wesson? The answer is both. The Biblical accounts of Jesus and the Apostles read in a similar way and should be accepted as such.



Back to what I said earlier: Science/empiricism are not still THE only way to treat the key assumptions of Christianity. BinaryBoi's argument fails because the key assumptions of Christianity are (guess what) non-empirical. What IS empirical about Christianity is identifying who and what Jesus was by the miracles He performed. Turning water into wine and feeding 5,000 and 4,000 people on two separate occasions cannot obviously have any natural cause. Such things are impossible. Supernatural intervention would have to be required for such an act to occur. Those who DID witness the accounts and the corroboration by one or more Gospels show that those eyewitnesses DID have empirical evidence that something was happening beyond what we know of this physical world. WHAT, exactly, that was would not be "scientifically" verified (as per the demands of the religious conservatives of the times). This was intentionally done to express the importance of faith and reliance on God. If someone did not have faith in God's power to do those things, he would not have God at his disposal to do cheesy, undignified parlor tricks. Thus those who are unwilling to believe will go on unbelieving.

Thus the letters and the gospels (not to mention the fulfillment of OT law and prophecy) provide empirical documentation that there WAS a person named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God, performed miracles, was put to death by sinners for sinners, and rose from the dead on the third day. After this He appeared to many witnesses and ascended to heaven in their sight.

Now, empirically speaking, the Bible either has to be all true or it has to be all false. I've already told you what I know to be true, which is that the Bible is true and correct in its handling of God's message of love and salvation for all--that is, all may come through Jesus into salvation from sin if they so choose.

Non-empirically, we can read the Bible, pray, and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit. We can memorize and meditate on scripture. So not only can we talk to God, we can talk to others about God. Not only can we develop our skills in witnessing to others, but we can become acquainted with Christ through His teachings and with God's will through the scripture and through the Spirit. All of these things count as knowledge, though they are non-empirical.

How are non-empirical levels of knowledge relevant to God's existence? Well, they aren't DIRECTLY relevant. God still exists whether we know He exists or not. But INDIRECTLY we can apply all types of knowledge to an inference that God exists in part because we can also apply those same knowledge types to other non-empirical objects--love/affection, morality, gravitation, energy, common sense, numbers, and so forth. Intuition, like it or not, DOES play a valid role in obtaining knowledge. I can know God by being acquainted with God, same as a gastro-intestinal doctor can help you fix your ingrown toenail by referring you to the same podiatrist he sees for the same problem. I'm a pianist, but I can put you in touch with one or two wonderful violinists if you'd rather learn violin because I've personally worked closely with them in the past and respect their work. So I may not be able to trap God in a test tube and show Him to you, but that doesn't mean I can't know God in a non-empirical way.

Try as you may, empiricism is false. As long as there are multiple ways of knowing things, science cannot provide ALL the answers for everything. It is designed to examine the physical world--nothing more and nothing less.

Empiricism is incomplete. There are questions which are meaningful to people that the empirical approach does not or cannot answer. Perhaps some of these questions are inherently unanswerable by b beings with finite mentality and finite lifespan. But what empiricism DOES address is addressed in a masterful and useful manner. The empirical approach is responsible for the technology that has made our lives longer, more productive and healthier. Religious faith does very little to make the material condition of mankind (and we ARE material beings, made of flesh, bone and blood) better.

The incompleteness of empiricism should not be confused with ots being false. On the other hand most of what religions have to say about the real world in which we live is either false to fact or just plain nonsense on stilts.

ruveyn

What nature?



Nobody knows who wrote the gospels.



Little doubt? So no concrete evidence.



Just your opinion.



How many contemporary history are eye witness accounts? Again, there is no evidence that the author of Luke have done any systematic interview of all the eye witnesses, and nowhere in Luke claim this is the case




Here AngelRho's analogue fails for a fundamental reason. Namely, the accounts of the world wars, American constitution etc. does NOT involve any miracle! They just add details to event that are known to be possible (indeed likely) to happen (from a scientific POV). Not to mention that there are material evidence supporting the accounts.

On the other hand, even AngelRho himself admits the miracles are scientifically impossible. So the validity of these accounts must be weighted against other explanations.



FYI, Fuchida Mitsuo's book on Midway is an eye opener. Read Shattered Sword by Parashall and Tully.



Or because Paul et. al. want to make their version of heresies the orthodoxy.



Do you need any faith before testing the theory of gravity? This only proves the theology is so weak that people cannot be made to believe simply by the weight of evidence, whether they like it or not.


More baseless assertions. Can your 'knowledge' be wrong?



Utter nonsense. How intuition helps you to understand quantum mechanics?

Is there any concrete evidence regarding, say, "Big Bang" theory, or "M Theory," or "String Theory"? Yet those who promote such ideas have "little doubt" about them.

On the other hand, there ARE scriptural clues to the writers of the gospels. Theres no significant evidence to suggest that anyone else but to whom we've traditionally ascribed the writers of the gospels to be actually did write the gospels.



Not so. Other Bible scholars and critics have made the same observation. Read it in comparison with the other gospels. It's a much more sophisticated work, not to mention it is much more detailed. It is very easily the work of someone with a better-educated background than the other writers.



Also not true. The purpose statement of Luke states that his goal is to provide a much more "orderly" account of the life and teachings of Jesus so that the reader may know the truth about all that had been written about Jesus up to that point. There had been no shortage of other "gospels," probably based on oral tradition right after Jesus' ascension and probably "mostly" true. But, not surprisingly, over time certain writings came to be more widely circulated and used than others, while other writings may have shown some inconsistent details or even outright false teachings. Gradually, the early Christians would have abandoned these other writings in favor of writings that were more easily verifiable at the time. The current canon survived numerous Counsels, government-sponsored heresies, and even the Protestant Reformation. So early on in church history Luke perceived a need to collect eyewitness accounts and other written accounts (Mark being the more obvious one) into a single volume. Luke more often reads as "just the facts, ma'am."

Contemporary histories are based on reports of people who WERE there when the events took place. Else how could they be verified? Now, true, there are no known surviving members of the Confederate army to give their perspective on why the American Civil War was fought, but there are still in existence letters from soldiers, descriptions of battles from soldiers and their commanders, federal and state legislative bills that were signed into law, court cases, newspapers, books written by historians and other people living at the time, and all sorts of other documentation from either eyewitnesses or others who were close to the action--all of which STILL are referenced in history texts, peer-reviewed journals, and so on because there is no doubt about their reliability.

Thus the gospels and the epistles represent the written record of the lives of Jesus and His disciples. Since Luke states his intentions in the beginning of the gospel and Acts, we may know that Luke was attempting an orderly written account of what happened.



Whether an account of something involves a miracle or not is irrelevant. Denying that miracles COULD have happened is an admission of anti-supernatural bias. It makes no difference how an outsider tries to explain away something he can't repeat. I suppose a Klan member, if he had his way, could rewrite descriptions of Lincoln's policies in such a way that they might as well never happened. So a different understanding of Biblical miracles, particularly New Testament miracles on the part of Jesus and the disciples, is in effect telling those people that they didn't see what they saw. You may not buy into the miracle explanation, but you can't deny that SOMETHING happened. And whatever happened was profound enough to make believers of people. Even Jesus was quick to send the message that He would not perform miracles for those without faith. To give into those demands would have reduced Jesus to nothing more than a street performer.

The accounts ARE material evidence. You cannot, for example, go into a courtroom and ask for material support for, say, a bloody knife. The bloody knife itself IS its material support. It needs no material support. However, a prosecutor DOES have to provide material support to convict a husband of the murder of his wife. If she died from stab wounds and a bloody knife is found nearby and it just happens to have the husband's fingerprints on it, or if the husband is caught WITH the knife in his hand, then the knife becomes a key piece of material evidence. Now over time, the knife as a piece of evidence will likely get lost after it has served its purpose as a piece of evidence. But just because we lose the knife doesn't mean the crime never happened. If it's an open-and-shut case, the murder case itself will become part of the written documentation of court proceedings. If, for some reason, the particular court case has significance elsewhere, one need only open the books and examine the court record to understand what happened and what legal precedents, if any, have been set that may be useful in other cases.

Likewise, the New Testament is a sort of "smoking gun" for the Christian faith. Those who lived during Jesus' earthly ministry are long gone. All we have left of that point in time is the written record of the evidence--the Bible. Similar types of evidence are perfectly admissible in a court of law, and it's no surprise that many lawyers come to a saving knowledge of Christ. They have a duty to examine the evidence, in and out of court, and they find the Bible to be sufficient.

"Scientifically impossible" is perhaps not the best descriptor of miraculous, super-natural events. Science doesn't work in terms of "impossible." It recognizes that certain rules cannot be physically broken--like the law of gravity, laws of thermodynamics, and so on. QM, which to me is like the rebellious step-child of theoretical science, DOES show that particles have the characteristics of waves AND matter and they can come in and out of existence or affect each other at distances. But since our understanding of physical objects shows us that objects of any mass don't just appear and reappear at random (although it DOES explain a possibility as to why I consistently have odd numbers of socks come out of the wash when I consistently put socks in the wash in pairs), QM doesn't really explain where enough bread to feed an estimated 9,000 population can possibly come from. Science would deal with it if it were something that could be repeatable in a controlled setting. But as it is, the scientific method is insufficient for "measuring" miracles. But since science DOES show that certain things are unexplainable in purely physical terms, it DOES detect such things as "acts of God" in the sense that science cannot rule out such possibilities. You may search for any number of explanations you want. But what you'll find in your search is that no explanation you can come up with will be scientifically falsifiable. But even if you assume that the feeding of the multitudes on two separate occasions probably included many from the first instance, we're still talking about at least 4,000 people who were a witness to it at least once, maybe even twice. So your examination of possible explanation has to contend with a large body of witnesses, not just the disciples.

If, however, you drop any bias against any possibility of supernatural intervention, then the possibility that those events actually happened are more easily explainable.




My assertions aren't baseless at all. They're based on my conclusions of what I've read and understood of the Bible. You really do have to be very careful of HOW you use the Bible because of the historical, cultural, literary, and other contexts in which it was written. It DOES have a timeless quality to it in the message that it presents about the need for atonement for sins, the provision of that atonement on the part of God Himself through Jesus, and the requirement of the believer's acceptance of God's forgiveness through faith. Those are the basic things that never seem to escape a true theology, and they transcend variations of culture, literature, and other scriptural and theological concerns. But if you say the Bible is inerrant in truth but apply every single little word to a modern-day context, the Bible makes little sense at all. You do have to take into considerations such as figures of speech. Jesus often spoke in hyperbole to make a point. It's fairly obvious when He does this. And His practice is not really different than the writers of the Old Testament, especially the prophets. You have to take into account the reasons why they said the things they said and the intended effect it was to have on their audience and readership. The most obvious example to me is Proverbs. You cannot take a proverb, any proverb (Biblical or not) TOO literally. The Proverbs of the Bible promise wealth and security if you obey them. Well, not everyone who obeys every letter of Proverbs gets wealthy or lives securely. Why? I won't go into it much here, but suffice it to say that proverbs are broad, general statements of wisdom. Only in such a context, as basic guidelines for daily living, are they true.

Psalms are poems, songs, and saying of wisdom.

Prophecies are always conditional.

The books of Kings and Chronicles are report cards of the kingdom period leading up to the captivity. Other writings describe the return from Babylon.

The Gospels are records of Jesus' life and ministry on earth. The letters are words of encouragement and correction to the early church and serve to remind the church to keep Jesus' commandments and evangelize Gentiles. Revelation joins other revelatory prophetic writings in describing the return of the Messiah. John's book is not new--descriptions of the "end of the age" are throughout the Gospels, mentioned in some of the letters, and confirm the visions of OT writers such as Daniel.

By understanding what these writings ARE and how they are to function in understanding theology, one CAN argue tenets of the faith and the validity of the text itself. It's not baseless at all.

Can my "knowledge" be wrong? Well... Tough question. MOST knowledge is propositional knowledge, which is what I've been talking about. I've mentioned knowledge by acquaintance before. Skill knowledge is not something Christianity emphasizes very much for the reason that salvation can't be "earned" through works (of skill). Skill knowledge applies more to Christian growth than anything else, but it is still a form of knowledge.

But as I said, much of what we know is propositional. Propositional knowledge is, in simple terms, a justified true belief. You can't KNOW something that you don't believe. In order for it to be knowledge, it has to be true. In other words, you can "believe" something, but if what you "believe" is false, then it's not knowledge. If I say "the letter 'a' is the third letter of the alphabet," then obviously I don't know my alphabet very well if at all. So it has to be something you believe AND true, but it also has to be justified by the right reasons. You can't "wish" the letter "a" to be the third letter of the alphabet and make it so. You can't say that you "know" the letter "a" is the first letter of the alphabet if you're just guessing. There has to be some reason for you to believe that "a" is the first letter of the alphabet in order to justify saying that you "know" that it is.

The important thing to understand about what makes a reason the "right" reason is the nature of the proposition. I can say that my kids enjoy having me around. How do I know that? They smile, laugh, and play with me and stay fairly calm if I'm not being active with them. My kids laugh, smile, and play with me, which indicates that there is some truth to "my kids enjoy having me around."

So propositional knowledge, by virtue of what knowledge is, HAS to be "right."

So when I read and study the Bible, I have the ability (just like anyone) to discern for myself whether my beliefs are true and justified. Because I know the Bible for what it is and understand it, I can say that my knowledge isn't wrong. First of all, I believe it. Second, I can examine the written record (the Bible) to determine whether what I believe is true. And I can also justify my beliefs through application of the Gospel to my life and verify the truths of the Gospel through experience.

And that's just the part dealing with propositional knowledge, much of what is factual and acquired through the senses (reading the Bible, hearing sermons, reading common analyses/criticism of Biblical passages, discussing it, listening to opposing viewpoints, etc.). That doesn't take into account non-empirical knowledge. The sensus divinatis is one non-empirical piece of evidence for God's existence. So if we can justify our belief in God through non-empirical evidence as well as the empirical evidence of God's creation (the Earth, the universe), we can also justify what He has revealed to us through Scripture and rest in the knowledge that faith in Jesus rescues us from the condemnation of our sinful nature.

Scripture is a book of stories. It has no more probity or validity as empirical evidence than do the stories written by J.R.R.Tolkien (LOTR and The Silmarillion). And Tolkien's stories are better written too.

ruveyn

Which just proves my point. If the writers of the gospels, et al, were trying to impress someone, they did a poor job. Someone who IS trying to promote some kind of agenda--for example, authoritarian control of a population through religion--would work a lot harder to make sure everything they write is glittering gold. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had a history of fabricating stories, especially about war-time victories that never even happened. They'd write outcomes of battles before they even happened. A society which deified their national leader would be humiliated to the utmost if anything at all showed fallibility in the Pharaoh.

A key difference between the religion of the ancient Israelites and Christians is the portrayal of God as supreme, not a single human being set above other humans and/or made equal with God. A significant theme of Christianity is, rather than man reaching up to God, God reaching down to man. It's hardly exciting in the sense that, while LOTR shows the triumph of humans and other creatures rising above themselves to defeat evil forces, the "heroes" of Christianity die. After Jesus' ascension, the martyrs died and didn't come back. If the New Testament is a work of fiction or was written as a means of control, the authors certainly didn't do themselves or their followers any favors.

It's kinda like when local TV news reporters go out to trailer parks after a tornado. Do they find the nice, smart guy what happened? No! They find the craziest, crack-head they can. So the account of the tornado goes a little something like this: "Yeah, I was down 'er at the corner in muh pickup truck, when dar it wuz! Dat funn'l cloud dun come down 'er an' it dun sounded like some ol' FREIGHT TRAIN!. So I run do 'er to muh trailer but den it dun come through and took ever'thang. It hauled up and took my trailer and then it blew down my meth lab, and you can see all muh chemicals strowed everywhar..."

Now, I don't think the Bible was written by a bunch of crack-heads. But I do think there is a certain "earthy" quality to a lot of it that is comprehensible even to the less sophisticated among us. For me, that has a lot to do with making it much more believable than "smarter" texts. Now, if you NEED that kind of intellectual stimulations, by all means spend some time reading Paul. Dive into the historical and cultural context and gain a better understanding of it. I mentioned reading Paul's writings--Paul was always intensely aware of the audiences he spoke to. Both Jews and Greeks had histories of extensively debating theology and philosophy. I'm not much of a philosopher, but following the discussions here along with a serious study of the Bible has reawakened my interest in philosophy, especially in relation to my faith. So while anyone with basic reading ability can begin studying and understanding the Bible, there are PLENTY ways a Christian can exercise the mind and gain a deeper understanding of scriptural meaning.

And in so studying the Bible, there's no reason to think that the accounts are implausible.



So it stands that the New Testament is what it says it is: Accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, the fulfillment of God's plan of salvation, and letters which are descriptive of applied theology within the early church. Those who wrote it in many circumstances were not the best educated people, though Luke and Paul certainly seem to be the exceptions here. But educated or not, they were very candid in the information they provided.

What falsifiable prediction the bible gives?

Regarding Luke: False assumption. Even if Luke had been written 30 years after the fact, MANY eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

The court example: If a suspect were to say a fire-breathing dragon touched the house, most likely the court would doubt that since fire-breathing dragons are not known to exist.

HOWEVER...

In a court of law, the prosecution has to shoulder the burden of proof. A suspect cannot be brought up on arson charges if there is no evidence of arson. If a fire-breathing dragon really did set the house on fire, then evidence would point to something extraordinary, not a suspect. Further, a claim that a fire-breathing dragon did it WOULD be supported if there were multiple witnesses involved who could verify that a fire-breathing dragon really was seen in the area.

Obviously Christ was nothing like a fire-breathing dragon. Multiple witnesses serve to verify that He was a real person who performed miracles. Legal procedures would be forced to favor the conclusions of the evidence.

Regarding the Koran and the Book of Mormon: I'm quite familiar with those writings and I find them lacking. For instance, where are the "golden plates" from which Joseph Smith got his book? Apparently the angel Moroni took them back to heaven, which really is too bad. Supporting materials for the Bible, on the other hand, ARE still in existence: the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, which have been supported in reason times by the evidence found at Qumran which predate both (some believe the LXX actually PREDATES the MT, which is entirely possible, and the Dead Sea scrolls served to verify the copying accuracy of the MT. This is important because of subtle differences between the LXX and the MT, not just the language. Most Bible translators seem favor the MT, though rarely if information from the LXX seems to be more accurate it will be quoted in certain instances). Smith alleges that the Jews spoke "reformed Egyptian," but no evidence exists of any such language ever existing. Smith was hardly qualified to translate Egyptian writings, anyway, and the actual evidence of any REAL Egyptian writings that he translated turned out to be completely false. And even IF the golden plates ever existed, they teach false doctrines in contrast to the Bible--for example, salvation comes through works before faith. What does the Bible say? Faith alone is necessary. They will say the Bible is correct insofar as it is correctly translated. But what version of the Bible to they purport to be "correctly translated"? The King Jimmy. So in spite of what they say, Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are not compatible.

I could go on and on about LDS, but I better stop here. And don't EVEN get me started on the Koran.

Sounds to me like your religion studies teacher didn't really know the Bible very well. I've read that same account in every gospel that mentions it. The Bible says nothing like that, so already I think your teacher's qualifications are questionable. I mean, sure, it's plausible that people would have brought provisions for a day's journey. But if they hadn't expected to follow Jesus so far into the countryside, it's also plausible that they could have run out of food or at the very least the little food they HAD wasn't enough to give them enough strength for a long journey home. If there HAD been plenty of food, the disciples would not have any justifiable reason to approach Jesus about the problem.

As to "everything can happen": The Bible verifies that people tend to lump all things into "possible" or "impossible." An all-powerful God is not bound by such restraints. All you're trying to do is justify your own biases. Trying to counter that in an argument is silly as long as you insist on being closed-minded. I wish I could help you here, but I would probably do better trying to convince NPR to do present more conservative viewpoints and Fox News to present more liberal viewpoints. Given the particular biases in question, it's hardly likely any such petition would bear any fruit. If you are closed to even the possibility of the supernatural, then there's nothing more I can say. You have documented evidence that miracles DID happen and those things which happened justified a belief in the minds of eyewitnesses that Jesus was the Messiah. You believe something otherwise in spite of the evidence. So if you have no intention of clearing these biases of yours, then very little will change your mind, IF anything at all.

Now, you might say "if Jesus exists, why can't He just show up right now so I can see Him and believe?" The problem is that your bias would prevent you from believing any otherwise convincing physical manifestation of the supernatural because #1 Empirical methods would require you to repeat the experience in order to verify it and #2 you'd waste all your time looking for "alternative explanations." I think, perhaps for you but certainly for most people, there is a #3 which is you do not wish for there to even be a supernatural. You don't like God, the Bible, and so on, and thus you'd rather wish all those things out of existence. I suppose it's only natural. We get so hung up on the status quo that anything requiring us to experience changes within ourselves would naturally seem frightful. I personally would rather be frightened a little bit and reap the benefits than spent an eternity beyond God's care. Ironically, scientific methods are intended to be emotionless and unbiased. Applying the same unbiased approach to the Bible ought to verify it. But since we start with a false assumption, a bias, then we have to conclude that everything else is false. I find that to be truly sad.

It amuses me in your penultimate statement that you say I'm "just asserting." Apparently I'm not "just asserting," though. Science and empiricism, so far as they are linked, are fact-based. You are ignoring what "knowledge" is. Remember, propositional knowledge requires that a person believes what he says, what he says is true, and that it is justified. Propositional knowledge by nature HAS to be right.

I believe the sun exists. Is it true? Yes. There, indeed, DOES exist something in the sky that we call "sun." Am I justified in making that assertion? Yes. I can go outside on a clear day and point to it. Even on a cloudy day we can still benefit from its light, and we do have other ways of checking to see if it is still up there. Therefore, I have knowledge of the sun.

Having knowledge of Jesus is not really different. I believe in Jesus. Why? The Bible says so. Was Jesus real? I.e., can we know that He existed beyond stories in the Bible? There are other writings about Jesus and the time in which He was present on the earth that verify that. People knew Jesus before the gospels were penned, so it makes sense that the gospels aren't merely fiction. Even Muhammed accepted that Jesus was a real person despite rejecting Jesus as the Savior. So there is evidence that even non-Christian Jews and other outsiders had reason enough to believe in at least the existence of Jesus as a real person. So we accept that Jesus was real. We can examine the reports of those who personally knew Jesus face-to-face, and we can conclude that believing in Jesus as Savior is justified. Therefore, we CAN and DO have propositional (fact-based) evidence in favor of the existence of Jesus and faith that Jesus was who He said He was.

So yes, I'm asserting that the Bible is really knowledge, as opposed to nonsense. HOWEVER, my assertion IS justified. And since I can honestly make that claim, I can also make other (non-empirical as well as empirical) claims that ought to be no less true.

Non-empirical claims, by the way, are not inherently bad things. Riding a bike involves a lot of advanced physical concepts that many kids couldn't possibly understand without a more thorough scientific discipline at unreasonably early ages. Yet a child CAN ride a bike and not know what the word "inertia," an essential component of bike riding, even means. We often do things we know nothing ABOUT beyond our own ability to DO. When I teach piano lessons, as another example, I rarely rely on my abilities as a composer and theorist. I have ONE piano student who wants to specialize in a particular style of piano playing. In order to do teach her what she wants to know, I have to sharpen her abilities in other areas that are not in her immediate area of interest. For example, I demand that she build her speed, agility, and precision. Why? Because technical facility along with finger and wrist strength automatically give you a command of the entire keyboard. I COULD just give her a dumbed-down version of what I know about triadic chord construction, which is really all she wants. But I also know that by doing so I'm not really doing her any favors. I want her to walk into any performance situation and be prepared--solo improvisation, melodic "fill-ins" during gaps in ensemble playing, memorization of commonly-used chord progressions, harmonization of melodies, realizing lead sheets, and playing by ear. But she can't do ANY of those things if she doesn't have a disciplined knowledge of the keyboard first. And not a single one of those things involves empirical knowledge. Lead sheets give you the chord changes and the "lead" melodic line, but they don't tell you what voicings to use or rhythmic patterns consistent with style. Those are things you have to "make up" based upon other things that you DO know, such as what constitutes a particular musical style. But that's not the point of lead sheets. You have to incorporate a number of related skill-based disciplines in order to improvise the "right" comping pattern.

Another example: Beyond having an empirical knowledge of the rules of the road and detecting other motorists through the senses, driving a car is mostly non-empirical. You aren't required to know the intricacies of the internal-combustion engine in order to turn the key and take the road.

Fact-based knowledge is only one form. I CAN justify my beliefs through facts. My personal opinion is that the strongest Christians in the faith are able to do that. The single best way is through Bible study. But I'm also aware that there is more to knowledge than purely fact-based knowledge. If you're being honest, you'll have to acknowledge the same.

the author of j&m is my hero.

LOL

Wait a minute...

Is that a depiction of Mohammed???

You BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!

30 years? Wiki says the most accepted date for Luke is 85 AD, 55 years after death of Jesus. Based on what you say many eyewitnesses would still have been alive?



What report you are talking about?


Obviously, the son of god is more extraordinary than a fire-breathing dragon. So far you failed to provide a shed of evidence the authors of the gospels interviewed any witness. Now you assert that the miracles are confirmed by multiple independent witnesses? Where do they come from? Your fantasy world?



The golden plate should be compared with the ten commands or the empty tomb. Comparing the copying accuracy of the MT and accuracy of claims within the Book of Mormon is bias. It is ironic that you read the Koran and the Book of Mormon without faith and then you complain, while you accuse me of narrow minded because I do not have faith in the bible.



So? Those 'eye witnesses' have no idea about modern science. Thing that we know are natural can easily appear 'supernatural' to them (actually they may not consider god as supernatural).

Again, why don't you believe Mohammad is the last prophet despite 'documented evidence' and the fact many people who met him face to face believed his claim?



So all counter arguments are your guess. Nobody did a statistics on how much food were there. So the witness, if any, are in no position to comment on the how bad the situation was. Moreover, if 10% out of 9000 people had no food, that is still 900 people. How is that not a big enough problem to approach Jesus?


In what way 'skill knowledge' involve any claim?


There are non fact based knowledge. Faith is not one of them.