How does one come to believe something?

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Whatever you think you "gotcha" me at... you have to be a little more elaborate. I cannot follow you.

I was just saying that I now understand the point that you were trying to make in your previous post. That's all. I was not saying "gotcha" like "Ha! I have you now!" But rather, "Ah...I see. I understand you".

 

[Freodin]

I was just saying that I now understand the point that you were trying to make in your previous post. That's all. I was not saying "gotcha" like "Ha! I have you now!" But rather, "Ah...I see. I understand you".

Ok.

So what now?

Is this going to be a "I see, and here is why I disagree with your point." or a "I see, and I will ignore it to keep presenting the same argument another time" kind of understanding?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Ok.

So what now?

Is this going to be a "I see, and here is why I disagree with your point." or a "I see, and I will ignore it to keep presenting the same argument another time" kind of understanding?

It's more like, I understand the argument now and I have decided that it is not worth my time. That is unless you believe that a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God actually existed. If you do, then we have something to work with. If you are one of those people who think that Christianity is the biggest conspiracy of all time and that neither Jesus and the apostles ever existed at all and somehow a group of faceless, nameless people just created a new religion out of thin air, we are done.

 

[Kylie]

You do realize that "Christus" is Latin for "The Christ". Since tacitus is mentioning "The Christ" that "Christians" worshiped, it is obviously clear that Tacitus is referring to Jesus Christ.

And I can mention Shiva that the Hindus worship, doesn't mean that's real either. Tacitus saying that Christians worship Christ is not evidence that Jesus really existed.

 

[Near]

By your logic, an account of Jesus written in 1952 would count as a primary source, since "Jesus was alive after AD 50, because he has conquered death." I am not going to start with the assumption that Jesus is real in order to let myself be convinced that Jesus is real. If you were in my position, would you? Since they were not written at the time of the events they describe, I will not accept them as primary sources.

Well, if Jesus literally appeared in an interview on CNN later today, that would count as a primary source. Although that sounds silly, there's nothing logically invalid about it, in terms of being a primary source.
I take the claims of historians at face value for the most part; for example, I believe Buddha existed.
I don't believe in his teachings or claims about Nirvana, or some eight-fold path though.
I believe Paul's epistles were written down during the same time of the events he described, and I don't think he made up a tale about Jesus. It's not as if Jesus isn't mentioned or described in the epistles.

As for writings about Jesus' miracles before his ascension, perhaps there were primary sources, that have been lost due to a number of factors which may involve destruction of documents, or they're just still out there. Either way, even if some ancient text were found which was written down at the exact moments of Jesus' miracles, we would have no idea of whether such actually was the case or not from an academic POV. One might as well say, "cool story".

As for the epistles themselves, I will have to do more reading on them. But the reading I have done so far (which I admit is not much) has shown contradictions within itself. For example, Romans 2:5-6 says that God judges people according to their deeds, but in the next chapter, Romans 3:20 says, "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

I don't see a contradiction there.
The first says God judges you when you break the law, the later says that the law wont justify a person. It's one thing to be judged, and another to be justified.

Other study I have done show that Paul never claims he met an earthly Jesus, nor does he give an account of Jesus' life on Earth (except for a few interpolations). [SOURCE]

Why should it matter whether Paul claims he met earthly Jesus? What's wrong with meeting heavenly glorified Jesus?
As for accounts of Jesus' life, the point of Christianity is to do what Jesus commands. Whether or not I know about each detail of his life is superfluous.

Also, I have to wonder, if the Epistles count as undeniable evidence that Jesus existed, why is there no evidence of Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus?

What we have are ancient documents, the gospels, which describe a narrative involving many characters. Should we expect to find an auto-biography of each one of the saints in order to prove their existence?
I don't think you're right about the Epistles. They are NOT undeniable evidence. They are normal, deniable evidence. Testimony written down in letters, and other information gathered together compiled into what we know as the gospels.
I'm not going to say we have proven without a doubt that Christianity is true, although I believe it is.
Epistemically , we can't know what happened in the distant past with any great certainty.
One could claim Jesus never existed.
One could claim he existed, but he wasn't "magical", he was just a man.
I believe he rose from the dead, and is the risen Lord.

It's up to you to decide what to think.
Have you watched the movie, Life of Pi?
It's a cool movie, and here's a quote from it:

“So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?' Mr. Okamoto: 'That's an interesting question?' Mr. Chiba: 'The story with animals.' Mr. Okamoto: 'Yes. The story with animals is the better story.' Pi Patel: 'Thank you. And so it goes with God.”

I wanted to believe in God, and I really like the story of Jesus, and his Resurrection. It happens to be the case that we're asked to believe in Jesus as being real, and the voices of the past seem to testify that what they believed in is true.
I choose to say the same.

 

[Near]

And I can mention Shiva that the Hindus worship, doesn't mean that's real either. Tacitus saying that Christians worship Christ is not evidence that Jesus really existed.

At the very least, it's evidence that someone believed that it was the case that a certain group of people, worshiped a specific person called Jesus, who may or may not have existed.
That's like saying, I know a guy who says he likes Trump. However, that's just my testimony of a guy I know. I can't say whether or not Trump exists based off that claim. However, it makes sense to be charitable in these discussions.
If a person wants to, they could deny anything other than their own existence, and posit solipsism.
If your goal is to further build walls to stay within the confines of unbelief, not allowing even simple claims to be granted as true like, "a man named Jesus was considered Messiah in ancient times", will certainly maintain strong skepticism. (note, I said considered, not that he was, although I believe it to be true.)
The choice is yours.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

Thread cleaned!

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

ON!

OFF!

 

[Kylie]

Well, if Jesus literally appeared in an interview on CNN later today, that would count as a primary source. Although that sounds silly, there's nothing logically invalid about it, in terms of being a primary source.

And if he did so, I would be more than happy to accept it as a primary source.

Although, let's be honest. If a man went on television and claimed that he was Jesus, returned from Heaven, do you really think that people would believe him? We've had people who claim to be Jesus before, and most people thought they were just nutjobs. Why would this be any different?

Would you believe such a story?

I believe Paul's epistles were written down during the same time of the events he described, and I don't think he made up a tale about Jesus. It's not as if Jesus isn't mentioned or described in the epistles.

Even granting this, why do you think that they were written down during the life of Jesus? The scholars who study them agree that they were written after 50AD at least. That's way too late for your position to be true.

As for writings about Jesus' miracles before his ascension, perhaps there were primary sources, that have been lost due to a number of factors which may involve destruction of documents, or they're just still out there. Either way, even if some ancient text were found which was written down at the exact moments of Jesus' miracles, we would have no idea of whether such actually was the case or not from an academic POV. One might as well say, "cool story".

But you're just guessing there, aren't you.

I don't see a contradiction there.
The first says God judges you when you break the law, the later says that the law wont justify a person. It's one thing to be judged, and another to be justified.

So God will judge you, he just won't judge you good.

Sounds like the old, "You can have anything you want to drink, as long as it's water."

Why should it matter whether Paul claims he met earthly Jesus? What's wrong with meeting heavenly glorified Jesus?

How do you know that wasn't a hallucination then? At least with an Earthly Jesus, we can be sure of when it happened, and we can try to find other documents that also recorded the event.

As for accounts of Jesus' life, the point of Christianity is to do what Jesus commands. Whether or not I know about each detail of his life is superfluous.

So now you are saying it doesn't matter?

What we have are ancient documents, the gospels, which describe a narrative involving many characters. Should we expect to find an auto-biography of each one of the saints in order to prove their existence?

And how did we verify who wrote the gospels? How do we know that the gospels were written at the time of the events they describe? We don't.

I don't think you're right about the Epistles. They are NOT undeniable evidence. They are normal, deniable evidence. Testimony written down in letters, and other information gathered together compiled into what we know as the gospels.

So I have to ask, why do they convince you but the evidence against is unconvincing?

I'm not going to say we have proven without a doubt that Christianity is true, although I believe it is.
Epistemically , we can't know what happened in the distant past with any great certainty.
One could claim Jesus never existed.
One could claim he existed, but he wasn't "magical", he was just a man.
I believe he rose from the dead, and is the risen Lord.

Are you allowing a bias to influence you here? If you were raised Christian (I assume you were, but happy to admit I'm wrong if you weren't), wouldn't those beliefs you'd been shown since childhood influence what you believe?

It's up to you to decide what to think.
Have you watched the movie, Life of Pi?
It's a cool movie, and here's a quote from it:

“So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?' Mr. Okamoto: 'That's an interesting question?' Mr. Chiba: 'The story with animals.' Mr. Okamoto: 'Yes. The story with animals is the better story.' Pi Patel: 'Thank you. And so it goes with God.”

Interesting quote, but I am not going to choose my version of reality based on which version is cooler.

If I am ever in a situation where I can't prove something either way, I will take the only HONEST way and admit that I don't know.

I wanted to believe in God, and I really like the story of Jesus, and his Resurrection. It happens to be the case that we're asked to believe in Jesus as being real, and the voices of the past seem to testify that what they believed in is true.
I choose to say the same.

Unfortunately, reality does not bend itself to fit what people want to believe.

 

[Kylie]

At the very least, it's evidence that someone believed that it was the case that a certain group of people, worshiped a specific person called Jesus, who may or may not have existed.

No argument about that from me. The writings of Tacitus do prove that, at the time they were written, there was someone who claimed that a group of people who worshipped a figure called Jesus existed.

That's like saying, I know a guy who says he likes Trump. However, that's just my testimony of a guy I know. I can't say whether or not Trump exists based off that claim. However, it makes sense to be charitable in these discussions.

By "being charitable", do you mean that you should accept the idea that Trump is real just because someone told you he likes Trump? (although, to be an accurate analogy, it should be a guy who told you he heard of a person who likes Trump).

If a person wants to, they could deny anything other than their own existence, and posit solipsism.

I'm a solipsist. Never met another one though. LOL!

If your goal is to further build walls to stay within the confines of unbelief, not allowing even simple claims to be granted as true like, "a man named Jesus was considered Messiah in ancient times", will certainly maintain strong skepticism. (note, I said considered, not that he was, although I believe it to be true.)
The choice is yours.

I have never doubted that a man named Jesus was considered to be the Messiah in ancient times.

I know that such claims have been made, and I have seen more then enough evidence to convince me that people way back then believed in Jesus and thought him to be the Messiah.

My position has only ever been that this does not mean Jesus actually existed.

 

[devolved]

As for writings about Jesus' miracles before his ascension, perhaps there were primary sources, that have been lost due to a number of factors which may involve destruction of documents, or they're just still out there. Either way, even if some ancient text were found which was written down at the exact moments of Jesus' miracles, we would have no idea of whether such actually was the case or not from an academic POV. One might as well say, "cool story".

Actually, we can use various methods that would point to whether or not it's plausible and likely. For example, which medium it was written on, and which dialect it fits in. Do independent dating methods point to the same era? Is the jargon consistent with anything else that the author write (if available).

There are a number of historical factors that we can point to in order to increase the likelihood of something to be "of the era" and region. No historical literature is a 100% conclusive, but we may have good reasons to doubt otherwise given certain prerequisites met.

Why should it matter whether Paul claims he met earthly Jesus? What's wrong with meeting heavenly glorified Jesus?

Perhaps the same kind of wrong as with a claim about meeting Thor, or Zeus?

 

[devolved]

At the very least, it's evidence that someone believed that it was the case that a certain group of people, worshiped a specific person called Jesus, who may or may not have existed.
That's like saying, I know a guy who says he likes Trump. However, that's just my testimony of a guy I know. I can't say whether or not Trump exists based off that claim. However, it makes sense to be charitable in these discussions.
If a person wants to, they could deny anything other than their own existence, and posit solipsism.
If your goal is to further build walls to stay within the confines of unbelief, not allowing even simple claims to be granted as true like, "a man named Jesus was considered Messiah in ancient times", will certainly maintain strong skepticism. (note, I said considered, not that he was, although I believe it to be true.)
The choice is yours.

I think you misunderstand the methodological approach to history when it comes to determining either or.

From a standpoint of a claim that looks like myth, it's very difficult to conclusively determine whether it's based on some real events and merely re-written the "Hollywood style", or if it's entirely a patchwork of fabrication and contrivance.

If we have to make that judgement solely from the "insider claim" that the claim is a 100% true, and not merely an innovative re-telling of a man called Jesus in an exciting "Hollywood" manner... then it's very difficult to separate the myth from reality.

For example, I claim to have a friend who can turn invisible, walk through walls, and travel in time. What would be more likely?

1) Such misconception is based on observing some real person that I have for a friend and projecting such claims on him
2) That it's a made up claim derived from some wild imagination that I may have

I think most scholars would likely pick #2, if the only thing they can go by is my claim and description. Let's say that I would dress the description with some seemingly ordinary facts like his name is Ben and he lives in NYC, and he has a mother and a brother, and he drives a 2008 black Dodge Nitro. It wouldn't matter, unless we can independently validate any of these apart from my claim that it's true.

If all I did was to claim that you've had a friend Ben, who lives in NYC and drives a dodge Nitro... then there's nothing exceptional about this claim that would push it into the "unlikely" category in scope of observable reality. After all there are plenty of guys living in NYC who drive Dodge Nitros, and plenty of guys named Ben. Hence we may grant some provisional likelihood to such claim, based on that it doesn't provide any inherent potential for being contrived. After all, what would the author stand to gain by fabricating a rather ordinary story?

You need to compare apples to apples, and that's why a lot of people don't understand. Not all claims are equal. Some can be taken as provisionally believable (unless evidence of the contrary is provided). Some are quite opposite - are provisionally unbelievable, unless the evidence of the opposite is provided.

Which one is which depends on what we generally observe in reality, and what we generally don't observe in reality.

 

[Near]

And if he did so, I would be more than happy to accept it as a primary source.
Although, let's be honest. If a man went on television and claimed that he was Jesus, returned from Heaven, do you really think that people would believe him? We've had people who claim to be Jesus before, and most people thought they were just nutjobs. Why would this be any different?
Would you believe such a story?

Lets say he was flying around on clouds, and shooting giant laser-beams out of his eyes, while winged angels flew around the sky. That would be a little more convincing right?

Even granting this, why do you think that they were written down during the life of Jesus? The scholars who study them agree that they were written after 50AD at least. That's way too late for your position to be true.

During the life of Jesus, in my view, is anytime he was alive, which is from the incarnation, til his death, and after his Resurrection.

But you're just guessing there, aren't you.

I'm simply doing what you've done. To say there is no evidence is not quite accurate. Rather, there's no evidence that you are aware of, which others may be aware of.

So God will judge you, he just won't judge you good.
Sounds like the old, "You can have anything you want to drink, as long as it's water."

No, it's saying that he'll judge you for being a thief, for example, but just by doing the right thing and not stealing, that won't you you off the hook.

How do you know that wasn't a hallucination then? At least with an Earthly Jesus, we can be sure of when it happened, and we can try to find other documents that also recorded the event.

I don't know it wasn't a hallucination. I don't believe he was hallucinating though. I'm free to believe either, just as you are, or you may be undecided about it.

So now you are saying it doesn't matter?

Many things in life are trivial. Does it matter whether we find out what Jesus' favorite food was?

And how did we verify who wrote the gospels? How do we know that the gospels were written at the time of the events they describe? We don't.

I don't claim that they were written down during the events they describe. They seems to be written in a style that seems to look in the past, and give an overall summary of what had happened. From what I've read, the gospels we have were written decades after Jesus' Resurrection. I don't have a problem with believing in something written decades after an event.

So I have to ask, why do they convince you but the evidence against is unconvincing?

I'm different, and I don't have an intention to further confirm any unbelief that I would have.

Are you allowing a bias to influence you here? If you were raised Christian (I assume you were, but happy to admit I'm wrong if you weren't), wouldn't those beliefs you'd been shown since childhood influence what you believe?

I wasn't raised Christian in the traditional sense. I was only taken to church once for a marriage ceremony. That's it. My parents are theists, but they're not overtly religious. Many beliefs from childhood influenced me, but the fact that they're from my childhood doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them more of a starting position in life. A position that can be retained, or lost.

Interesting quote, but I am not going to choose my version of reality based on which version is cooler.

If I am ever in a situation where I can't prove something either way, I will take the only HONEST way and admit that I don't know.

We don't choose a version of reality, nor do we decide and make it true what had actually happened. What we decide on in a way, is our perception, not the reality itself.
You can call yourself honest in not affirming anything, but are you saying that I'm dishonest by choosing to believe in the testimony of ancient people? I feel like that's just a jab at people for belief in something we haven't empirically proven?
Why can't I be a person of faith, and honest too?

Unfortunately, reality does not bend itself to fit what people want to believe.

It doesn't, and what I was referring to was personal belief about reality, not reality itself. If you're a solipsist, what is reality?

No argument about that from me. The writings of Tacitus do prove that, at the time they were written, there was someone who claimed that a group of people who worshipped a figure called Jesus existed.

Agreed, but I would then be charitable, and say, okay, this group exists, and why not, a person named Jesus as well. That's how one typically operates in life when it comes to average claims.

By "being charitable", do you mean that you should accept the idea that Trump is real just because someone told you he likes Trump? (although, to be an accurate analogy, it should be a guy who told you he heard of a person who likes Trump).

Yes, especially if there's nothing to lose or gain in accepting the claims. It's only when we're asked to change our views or behavior do we begin to be more skeptical.

I'm a solipsist. Never met another one though. LOL!

Well, I don't know what to say. Did the past billion years occur, or did reality begin to exist last thursday, in which all of our memories were just implanted?

I have never doubted that a man named Jesus was considered to be the Messiah in ancient times.

I know that such claims have been made, and I have seen more then enough evidence to convince me that people way back then believed in Jesus and thought him to be the Messiah.

My position has only ever been that this does not mean Jesus actually existed.

Well, it gives me the idea that Jesus existed, and I feel compelled to affirm his existence, as well as his Resurrection.
In order to prove it's even possible that Jesus existed, I guess you'd need to disprove solipsism as well, since if only one mind exists, others cannot. Unless of course, you grant that metaphysical solipsism is not true.

 

[Near]

Actually, we can use various methods that would point to whether or not it's plausible and likely. For example, which medium it was written on, and which dialect it fits in. Do independent dating methods point to the same era? Is the jargon consistent with anything else that the author write (if available).

There are a number of historical factors that we can point to in order to increase the likelihood of something to be "of the era" and region. No historical literature is a 100% conclusive, but we may have good reasons to doubt otherwise given certain prerequisites met.

Well, it seems to me that the jargon is consistent between biblical documents, and from what I've heard about Luke's gospel, and Acts, there are certain details described that do capture the time period they were written in.

I think you misunderstand the methodological approach to history when it comes to determining either or.

From a standpoint of a claim that looks like myth, it's very difficult to conclusively determine whether it's based on some real events and merely re-written the "Hollywood style", or if it's entirely a patchwork of fabrication and contrivance.

If we have to make that judgement solely from the "insider claim" that the claim is a 100% true, and not merely an innovative re-telling of a man called Jesus in an exciting "Hollywood" manner... then it's very difficult to separate the myth from reality.

For example, I claim to have a friend who can turn invisible, walk through walls, and travel in time. What would be more likely?

1) Such misconception is based on observing some real person that I have for a friend and projecting such claims on him
2) That it's a made up claim derived from some wild imagination that I may have

I think most scholars would likely pick #2, if the only thing they can go by is my claim and description. Let's say that I would dress the description with some seemingly ordinary facts like his name is Ben and he lives in NYC, and he has a mother and a brother, and he drives a 2008 black Dodge Nitro. It wouldn't matter, unless we can independently validate any of these apart from my claim that it's true.

If all I did was to claim that you've had a friend Ben, who lives in NYC and drives a dodge Nitro... then there's nothing exceptional about this claim that would push it into the "unlikely" category in scope of observable reality. After all there are plenty of guys living in NYC who drive Dodge Nitros, and plenty of guys named Ben. Hence we may grant some provisional likelihood to such claim, based on that it doesn't provide any inherent potential for being contrived. After all, what would the author stand to gain by fabricating a rather ordinary story?

You need to compare apples to apples, and that's why a lot of people don't understand. Not all claims are equal. Some can be taken as provisionally believable (unless evidence of the contrary is provided). Some are quite opposite - are provisionally unbelievable, unless the evidence of the opposite is provided.

Which one is which depends on what we generally observe in reality, and what we generally don't observe in reality.

Ben who lives in NYC drives a Dodge Nitro. Sure, that's acceptable, but I don't know whether or not that actually true.
If I claimed that Ben's brother used to be a baseball player for the San Francisco Giants, I might even say, yeah, sure.
If it's claimed that Ben's mother likes to kill little kids at parks, now, I'd be skeptical. I'd be skeptical because I'd have to do something about it if it were true, and I'd need more evidence. However, with all these claims, I wouldn't really know anything other than the fact that someone is telling me stories about people who may or may not exist.

As for deciding on what is true, I think scholars should admit that if they offer their view about Jesus' Resurrection, they should say it is their belief, if they make the claim for or against. If scholars pick #2 about your invisible friend, they're stating their personal belief, but they haven't shown #2 to be true.

As for the unlikely category in the scope of observable reality, what is unlikely exactly?
We don't know whether or not there are millions of invisible people flying around watching us.
We can't say for sure whether it's likely or unlikely because we don't know anything about the likelihood of the existence of things we don't know about.

As for Jesus, I think most would say he existed, but many doubt him as being the Risen Lord.
He's a historical person, but when it comes to his divinity, the decision to affirm it is up to the individual, not the general public, "we". We don't know. Individuals such as myself, believe. I am free to do so, and I also claim I'm being intellectually honest.

 

[devolved]

Well, it seems to me that the jargon is consistent between biblical documents, and from what I've heard about Luke's gospel, and Acts, there are certain details described that do capture the time period they were written in.

Sure. And there are certain details described in Unbelievable Ben's scenario that would do exactly the same. There are certain details described in Spiderman comic book that would match our reality. I hope you understand the point.

Ben who lives in NYC drives a Dodge Nitro. Sure, that's acceptable, but I don't know whether or not that actually true.

No one is claiming that accepting the provisional fact of it would be the same as it actually being true.

In history and science everything is provisional. It's ether provisionally true, or it's provisionally false. Depending on what the claim is, there has to be additional evidence to either validate the unlikely claims or invalidate the likely claims.

We don't know whether anything is a 100% truth in history. We only can say whether something is likely or not when we approach it from a standpoint of a claim itself... with no outside means of validating such claim.

If I claimed that Ben's brother used to be a baseball player for the San Francisco Giants, I might even say, yeah, sure. If it's claimed that Ben's mother likes to kill little kids at parks, now, I'd be skeptical.

BINGO! You got it! Now, compare that to the claim that "Ben's brother is a God incarnate, who can raise the dead".

I'd be skeptical because I'd have to do something about it if it were true, and I'd need more evidence. However, with all these claims, I wouldn't really know anything other than the fact that someone is telling me stories about people who may or may not exist.

Correct. We don't know something merely based on some distance claim as far as the truth of the matter goes. We can only tell what's likely and what's not... and the likelihood is contingent on the claim itself.

As for deciding on what is true, I think scholars should admit that if they offer their view about Jesus' Resurrection, they should say it is their belief, if they make the claim for or against. If scholars pick #2 about your invisible friend, they're stating their personal belief, but they haven't shown #2 to be true.

They don't really need to, or can show whether it's true or not. They merely would have to show what's likely based on the observable facts around us that we actually can verify. Not all belief is of the same certainty. And not all of the unsubstantiated claims are created equal.

As for the unlikely category in the scope of observable reality, what is unlikely exactly? We don't know whether or not there are millions of invisible people flying around watching us.
We can't say for sure whether it's likely or unlikely because we don't know anything about the likelihood of the existence of things we don't know about.

That's why the term is "provisional certainty". For example, I can have some provisional certainty that a Godzilla-like monster won't surface from the ocean and begin wrecking havoc on NYC. Why do I think so? Because it's not something that we observed in any time of our past, and the only comparable scenarios are figment of creative imagination.

Hence it's provisionally "unlikely" in respect to what we DO KNOW.

The opposite scenario. It's very likely that Theory of Relativity is accurate model of reality .... provisionally. It required some conclusive evidence to demonstrate that it is, BUT there still may be someone who would show a better model, and point out errors by experimental means. Hence, we have established likelihood of something that has to be overthrown by additional evidence.

It's exactly the same thing in your scenario with Jesus. From what we observe about reality, we don't see first-born dying off all at once, or Sun stopping in the sky for a day, or people rising from the dead and walking the streets surprising their loved ones who buried them. Therefore the claim that someone can rise from the dead, or perform the real magic tricks, or heal people with touch... is unlikely based on observable reality. In fact, from what we can observe about similar claims in history... we know that it's likely to be a myth than reality.

As for Jesus, I think most would say he existed, but many doubt him as being the Risen Lord. He's a historical person, but when it comes to his divinity, the decision to affirm it is up to the individual, not the general public, "we". We don't know. Individuals such as myself, believe. I am free to do so, and I also claim I'm being intellectually honest.

Again, given the limitation of our knowledge when it comes to personal experience of distant history, we can only say what is likely.

The myth version proponents would say:

1) We can't treat the religious literature on the par with historical literature
2) If Jesus was a real person, it would be very difficult to separate the Myth from reality
3) Thus, if Jesus narrative is fictional, then it's likely that it's been patched and sourced from experiences of many people.

For example, George Costanza character took inspiration from the writer himself - Larry David. A lot of episodes describe a wide variety of situations that Larry David personally went through, but we wouldn't say that George Costanza was in any form or shape a "historical person". He's a patchwork of various stories and experiences that's constructed to make us laugh.

Likewise, a Superman may have been inspired by a real person, but it's hardly justifiable to think so based on the entirety of the Superman narrative. It's very difficult to reconcile what exactly that would be? If one part isn't true, then how can you trust the other ones to be true if you don't know?

I hope you get the point.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm a solipsist. Never met another one though. LOL!

I like that. I may steal it.

 

[devolved]

I like that. I may steal it.

Don't bother. If she knows it, then everyone knows it too.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

 

[Near]

Sure. And there are certain details described in Unbelievable Ben's scenario that would do exactly the same. There are certain details described in Spiderman comic book that would match our reality. I hope you understand the point.
(...)
Again, given the limitation of our knowledge when it comes to personal experience of distant history, we can only say what is likely.

The myth version proponents would say:

1) We can't treat the religious literature on the par with historical literature
2) If Jesus was a real person, it would be very difficult to separate the Myth from reality
3) Thus, if Jesus narrative is fictional, then it's likely that it's been patched and sourced from experiences of many people.

For example, George Costanza character took inspiration from the writer himself - Larry David. A lot of episodes describe a wide variety of situations that Larry David personally went through, but we wouldn't say that George Costanza was in any form or shape a "historical person". He's a patchwork of various stories and experiences that's constructed to make us laugh.

Likewise, a Superman may have been inspired by a real person, but it's hardly justifiable to think so based on the entirety of the Superman narrative. It's very difficult to reconcile what exactly that would be? If one part isn't true, then how can you trust the other ones to be true if you don't know?

I hope you get the point.

I thought your point was that jargon helps to determine whether or not it's likely certain documents come from the same source. As for Spiderman, we know the origins, and that it's just fiction. On the other hand nothing I know of tells me it's likely that the bible is a work of fiction.

Let's agree that Costanza and Superman aren't real. We know they're not real, and we know about their creators, and about fictional entertainment. This doesn't seem to tell us that the bible was made up to be entertainment, or that it was likely entertainment.

No one is claiming that accepting the provisional fact of it would be the same as it actually being true.

In history and science everything is provisional. It's ether provisionally true, or it's provisionally false. Depending on what the claim is, there has to be additional evidence to either validate the unlikely claims or invalidate the likely claims.

We don't know whether anything is a 100% truth in history. We only can say whether something is likely or not when we approach it from a standpoint of a claim itself... with no outside means of validating such claim.
(...) Correct. We don't know something merely based on some distance claim as far as the truth of the matter goes. We can only tell what's likely and what's not... and the likelihood is contingent on the claim itself.

We're determining likelihood based off of what exactly? Isn't it up to the individual to believe what is likely based off the information that they've received which may be different than others?
When it comes to claims, I've personally decided that the claim that God exists isn't a big deal, and I accept it as true, just as I accept it as true that metaphysical solipsism is false.

BINGO! You got it! Now, compare that to the claim that "Ben's brother is a God incarnate, who can raise the dead".

While I don't believe that some guy named Ben has a brother who is God. I don't think that just because something sounds extraordinary means it's not true, or even not likely. Whether or not something is likely doesn't affect whether or not it's actually true in reality, nor does it affect whether or not some individual is justified in believing in it. Likelihood isn't a case for making definitive statements one way or another, only that it's possible, leaning on the side of possibly true, and that's as far as that goes. I don't think it gives us any warrant to say that something is indeed the case, nor would we have warrant to call it provisionally true.

Is it true that we ought to even accept all provisional truth as reality? If so, on what basis?

They don't really need to, or can show whether it's true or not. They merely would have to show what's likely based on the observable facts around us that we actually can verify. Not all belief is of the same certainty. And not all of the unsubstantiated claims are created equal.

Feelings of certainty, and the degrees of believability of claims, whether something requires more evidence or not, those things are all subjective, and up to the individual. When it comes to scholars, I could say it's likely that they're mostly biased, and that their findings could be skewed. I could also say, from what I've experienced in the world, there are a lot of liars. Why should I trust mere men with limited information, who were born 30 to 70 years ago who have no definitive knowledge of the past 2000 years?

That's why the term is "provisional certainty". For example, I can have some provisional certainty that a Godzilla-like monster won't surface from the ocean and begin wrecking havoc on NYC. Why do I think so? Because it's not something that we observed in any time of our past, and the only comparable scenarios are figment of creative imagination.

Hence it's provisionally "unlikely" in respect to what we DO KNOW.

The opposite scenario. It's very likely that Theory of Relativity is accurate model of reality .... provisionally. It required some conclusive evidence to demonstrate that it is, BUT there still may be someone who would show a better model, and point out errors by experimental means. Hence, we have established likelihood of something that has to be overthrown by additional evidence.

What we think we do know can be quite different. Not everyone knows the same thing, and as far as I know, none of us are omniscient. We tend to act anyways, despite not actually knowing, for the sake of survival, and self-interest (just to name a few reasons). Our past is gone, and provisional knowledge may as well be another word for belief, perhaps based on past experiences, but as with the Sun, it was there yesterday, and the day before, and it's been there for billions of years based on what's been told to me. How do we know it will be there tomorrow? Is it logically possible that it will not be there tomorrow?
Yes, and that's not merely provisional truth, i.e. belief regarded as true despite lack of certainty. There are a number of ways in which the sun could somehow go away, and if such a radical change is possible, then we can say multitudes of provisional truth are meaningless. Radical changes could occur in even more rapid rates, and we'd be really confused.

(...) Again, given the limitation of our knowledge when it comes to personal experience of distant history, we can only say what is likely (...)

It's exactly the same thing in your scenario with Jesus. From what we observe about reality, we don't see first-born dying off all at once, or Sun stopping in the sky for a day, or people rising from the dead and walking the streets surprising their loved ones who buried them. Therefore the claim that someone can rise from the dead, or perform the real magic tricks, or heal people with touch... is unlikely based on observable reality. In fact, from what we can observe about similar claims in history... we know that it's likely to be a myth than reality.

Our views are biased, and events you've named aren't supposed to happen regularly. For events that don't happen regularly, what should we say about them? That they're not true, not provisionally true? I'd only say that they are neither, provisionally true or false. I don't believe the observable reality gives us reason to think that it's not likely that the dead can rise. I have never seen a dead man rise from the dead, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Someone else may have witnessed such occur, during some other time period, who am I to say that such never occurred, even provisionally? To say so would be an assertion of faith without conclusive evidence; and it seems to me that there is no conclusive evidence that my own experiences are sufficient in determining whether or not something is likely or unlikely. If the universe is over 13 billion years old, and I've only been alive for 22 years, who am I to say that in such a short span of time, that I've experienced enough to make definitive judgments on what is likely or what is not likely. The same goes for the age of humanity itself. We're all just believers one way or another. Our knowledge is quite limited, and I'm not even sure we can say what is likely, or what likely even means when after a constant pattern of one thing happening, another completely unexpected thing occurs that shifts paradigms.

btw: I edited this a bit, after realizing I misworded a few things. I think I got it now.

 

[FireDragon76]

That doesn't even seem like a Christian account of belief, not unless you are perhaps a "free-will Baptist" that thinks of faith as nothing but informational content or facts about God. I am not an expert on real Arminianism but even then it sounds like it's not the case because there is still a sense that faith is a gift from God.

 

[devolved]

I thought your point was that jargon helps to determine whether or not it's likely certain documents come from the same source. As for Spiderman, we know the origins, and that it's just fiction. On the other hand nothing I know of tells me it's likely that the bible is a work of fiction.

No, my point was that it's not something we can tell from claims alone, and our allowance for credulity is always provisional.

Let's agree that Costanza and Superman aren't real. We know they're not real, and we know about their creators, and about fictional entertainment. This doesn't seem to tell us that the bible was made up to be entertainment, or that it was likely entertainment.

Sure, but if you didn't know... which one would likely be a reality, Costanze or Superman? See my point?

We're determining likelihood based off of what exactly? Isn't it up to the individual to decide what is likely based off the information that they've received which may be different than others?

Individuals don't generally decide individually. Most of our decisions are usually kept in checks and balances of our collective co-existence with other individuals, because that's how our minds work. That's one of the reasons this forum exists. That's the reason why we have education and media.

If it was up to individuals to decide, human reality would would be an incoherent mess.

While I don't believe that some guy named Ben has a brother who is God. I don't think that just because something sounds extraordinary means it's not true, or even not likely. Whether or not something is likely doesn't affect whether or not it's actually true in reality, nor does it affect whether or not some individual is justified in believing in it.

The way the reality of our perception is structured, we can't say whether anything is true or not beyond our own self-ascribed labels. For example, we know that 1 + 1 = 2 is true, because of how we define 1 and how we define 2 and how we define + and =.

When you begin stipulating anything else that's outside of our "model" of a label, there's no certainty that our perception is wrong, hence we go by likelihood that we inductively derive through consistent observation.

For example, do I know that sun will not explode tomorrow? No I don't. Is it possible that it can explode tomorrow? Yes, in some respect it may be. Will it explode tomorrow? I don't know, but it's likely that it will not based on what I've observed for the entirety of my life. Thus, it's useful to me to stipulate some provisional certainty in that it will not explode tomorrow.

Feelings of certainty, and the degrees of believability of claims, whether something requires more evidence or not, those things are all subjective, and up to the individual. When it comes to scholars, I could say it's likely that they're mostly biased, and that their findings could be skewed. I could also say, from what I've experienced in the world, there are a lot of liars. Why should I trust mere men with limited information, who were born 30 to 70 years ago who have no definitive knowledge of the past 2000 years?

You shouldn't trust either. You can only trust certain methodology that has proven to be more reliable when evaluating any given claim. Men 2000 years later have better methodology than people 2000 years before. They also have a broader scope of information about similar claims to see which one is likely and which one is not. Which one matches reality, and which one is likely fiction.

Again, if Superman was written as a religious book 2000 year ago, how could you tell a difference whether it was real or not? Based on your methodology, you wouldn't be able to.

We match the reality to the claim, and if it doesn't match... then we ask for more evidence or good and valid reasons as to why the claim doesn't match the observable reality.

What we think we do know can be quite different. Not everyone knows the same thing, and as far as I know, none of us are omniscient. We tend to act anyways, despite not actually knowing, for the sake of survival, and self-interest (just to name a few reasons). Our past is gone, and provisional knowledge may as well be another word for belief, perhaps based on past experiences, but as with the Sun, it was there yesterday, and the day before, and it's been there for billions of years based on what's been told to me. How do we know it will be there tomorrow? Is it logically possible that it will not be there tomorrow?
Yes, and that's not merely provisional truth, i.e. belief regarded as true despite lack of certainty. There are a number of ways in which the sun could somehow go away, and if such a radical change is possible, then we can say multitudes of provisional truth are meaningless.

A possibility is a construct of mind... a model that can either match the reality, or match some version of reality that doesn't exist.

In respect to the sun exploding, the possibility that it will explode is not true unless it actually explodes.

Thus, you need to o make a proper demarcation between what's real and what's imagined. Some possibilities are unknown in scope of reality. Some are not real, and exist only as a possible version of present reality. There's a difference.

Hence, when you are appealing to possible unknown, it's not the same thing as making an appeal to the possible known.

These are not equally likely, and that's the point that you continually miss in our exchange. The possibility of sun exploding isn't the same as possibility that unicorns exist. One is appealing to what we know, and the other attempts to induce unknown into reality.

Our views are biased, and events you've named aren't supposed to happen regularly. For events that don't happen regularly, what should we say about them? That they're not true, not provisionally true? I'd only say that they are neither, provisionally true or false.

Again, likelihood and certainty is derived through observable frequency. That's why we have statistics, and that's why insurance companies and casinos make money. They wouldn't if it wasn't the case.

Do people occasionally hit Jack pot? Sure. But it's very rare. Hence it's not a reliable way of getting rich. Usually, uou will lose more money than you'll gain. That's the hole point. So when you are claiming some reliability via an unreliable means... why would you object when people rule it out as less likely based on what they otherwise observe?

I don't believe the observable reality gives us reason to think that it's not likely that the dead can rise. I have never seen a dead man rise from the dead, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Again, not everything that's imagined as a possibility is a viable possibility, hence why we have concept of likelihood that's rooted in our understanding of reality.

Thus, if you inject via a claim anything that's not observable in our reality, it requires a justification of adequate evidence.

If there is no way to tell other than the claim itself, then from perspective of our perception of reality it's not really that different than non-existing things.

Is it possible that aliens exist? Yes. Do we live like they don't exist and it's merely a sci-fi fantasy we use for entertainment? Yes.

Again, you need to be able to differentiate between possibilities in scope of observable reality, and those that are not rooted in the scope of observable reality and you are merely injecting via a claim.

If the universe is over 13 billion years old, and I've only been alive for 22 years, who am I to say that in such a short span of time, that I've experienced enough to make definitive judgments on what is likely or what is not likely. The same goes for the age of humanity itself. We're all just believers one way or another. Our knowledge is quite limited, and I'm not even sure we can say what is likely, or what likely even means when after a constant pattern of one thing happening, another completely unexpected thing occurs that.

Again, you are making an argument from ignorance here, and these arguments have proven to be extremely unreliable in our short human experience.

We live in a consistent reality, and that's how we generally judge the truth claims... whether these are consistent with reality that we occupy.

We don't generally operate based on imaginary claims that we don't observe, and that's the problem with religion - it requires us to operate by imagining something that we don't otherwise observe and trust that such imagination is correct.

Again, such mode of "knowledge" and "understanding" has proven to be extremely unreliable in our history, and that's why we developed better methods. And guess what, when we did virtually everything improved. We have mass communications. We live longer. We can cure more diseases. We can travel faster, etc, etc.

Hence your appeal to the other method doesn't work in scope of what seems to work better. We've tried religious way for several thousand years, and the moment we switched to science... we get a lot better results.

And that's all you really need to see.