It wouldn't be proof. It would simply be evidence.
Since you were so polite to call one of my posts gibberish, I think i can return a favour by pointing out an error you have made.
Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Proof = Evidence my dear.
To prove - demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
To prove something you need evidence and an explanation that defends the proof/evidence.
What say you?
Some would say it's compelling, while others might suggest it is Photoshopped.
So some might say the evidence/Proof is compelling, some might believe it is not.
Well let's see.
Here is my testimony - please read.
I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.
All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.
After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!
I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!
Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.
Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.
Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.
There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.
Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.
I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.
I was given the Holy Spirit!!!
This could not happen without the resurrection of our Lord.
Now how should I use the trilemma to demonstrate the impossibility of this truth?
Why would my testimony not compel you?
What would you do if this happened to you?
Ps failure to answer here will be suspect and show that you are in the kiddie pool?
Proofs exist only in abstraction, not in reality.
Wait a minute you said this to me "Correct. You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?"
Abstractions - something which exists only as an idea.
Proof - Evidence.
Can you not see the contradiction here.
You just implied that reality is an idea but prevoously you tried unsuccessfully to chastise me for believing that I reject reality.
You really are confused.
Ok if proof exists only as an idea and not in reality then how do you know your girlfriend loves you? (I read your history
)
This whole cat and mouse game is you trying to make me look bad by picking on nihilism instead of dealing with things that are actually important.
What is more important to discuss than your belief in nihilism?
What should we talk about, tell me? I'm not going anywhere, neither are you.
It is significant that you are here. You were brought up in a denom of Christianity you suspect was a cult. You backsided and at 18 or 19 you decided to come home to Christ.
You read the Bible and got turned off.
I suspect you read the Bible and used misrepresentation to come to a negative conclusion about God. You decided if this negative conclusion is indeed correct then who could want this God. Then you threw away God because of misinformation.
There exists no counter-example to the trilemma. It has not been proved, nor can it, due to the very nature of the claims it makes.
So if it cannot be proved due to its redundant nature then why should I use it in my everyday?
Why do you believe something which cannot be proved?
Once again, the trilemma does not disprove truth.
It is a thought experiment. It cannot be proved due to the very nature of claims it makes. It can't prove or disprove anything.
There is no point in using. It is nothing to me, nothing trying to prove something.
Why is this useless experiment that cannot be proved and does not disprove truth significant to you? Significant enough that when I asked what nothingness meant to you, the trilemma was what you gave me.
Do you believe in things which cannot be proved?
Are you looking for the real thing?
Ps that wiki link you provided me says "In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics."
The impossibility of proving truth. Let's break those words down.
Check this out.
We are not able to demonstrate the truth or that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
Do you agree with that statement?
Before you answer don't forget what you said to me "You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?"
I have no idea what on earth it is you're asking me.
Ok I will reword and ask again.
That wiki leaks page you sent me re trilemma says I can argue against the proof - if I am given any.
You know what you sent me a copy of that message where you believe I ran away from you. Let's use the trilemma to to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth.
Even when the proof is supplied.
I would call myself a logical nihilist, which is to say that I don't see how there can be any sort of absolute grounding of truth.
There you go. That wasn't so hard.
Thanks I was never aware of that denom in nihilism.
If there is no grounding for truth then how is your statement grounded in truth?
"I would call myself a logical nihilist, which is to say that I don't see how there can be any sort of absolute grounding of truth."
Technically this statement has no truth or meaning. What you call your self and what you believe has no grounding in truth. The trilemma has no grounding in truth.
What happens when the rebels,rebel against the rebellion?
I've seen nothing but silly attempts, such as something like this:
Either absolute truth exists or it doesn't.
Let's check out one absolute truth. Will you die and What will happen to you?
(When you replied. How can you be certain of that reply because it has no grounding in truth.)
Why have you a girlfriend. That relationship must also have no grounding in truth.
Let's use the trilemma on your relationship with gf?
She loves you. Is that an axiomatic argument, a circular argument or an ad infinitum argument. When you have the reply just remember that it has no grounding in truth.
Suppose it does. Then the case is proven.
Why suppose let's see how you answer my previous reply.
Suppose it doesn't. If this is absolutely true, then absolute truth does exist.
This is too speculative for my tastes.
Therefore, absolute truth exists.
I have no reply to this.
This stupid argument rests upon the law of excluded middle, which not only fails to be true in any possible world, but it fails to be true in our own world. Quantum mechanics is a counter-example. Furthermore, the law of excluded middle is just another assertion and has firmly grasped the second horn of the trilemma.
All of this is too speculative and a distraction. If you want to or don't want to believe what ever point you are trying to make then, fair enough.
But if you feel there is point that needs to be addressed then please present an argument or proposition to me.
The combined efforts of apologists through the ages have certainly managed to read everything that survived the first couple centuries after Christ. Go and ask them and see the best they've got to offer.
So there you have it, you commited a logical fallacy. You have not read all recorded history and made a claim you could not support.
If you are honest you will restract your comment re through out recorded history because you do not have the ability to make such a statement.
I need to look no further than this very conversation to know what confident ignorance looks like. I'm not going to bluster and blather on about the meticulous methods of historians as though I actually know.
You still ignore the question, What horn would you wrestle with?
Is that a circular argument, a self evident argument, an argument of ad infinitum or is this your own opinion?
The original substance was what horn of the trilemma do you wrestle with re history.
Dude, you accuse me "It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation."
I've got access to all your replies, I would assume you do as well. Don't make yourself look bad. It makes it easier for me, I want a challenge. I though we were in the deep end?
Of course I'm not familiar with all known history. This is why I'm asking you to find me an example.
What!?!?
Dude i asked you "Why should I trust this statement re known history or recorded."
You know... when you said throughout all known and recorded history such a person does not exist.
You made a claim. One that is a logical fallacy. You have not read all known or recorded history.
It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation.
Wait... That statement sounds familiar?
No it is not. Failure to answer seems really suspect.
I will repeat it.
"If the Gospels were not eye witnessed or based on eye witnesses, what do YOU declare them to be and why should I trust you?"
You wanted to be in the deep end and not the kiddie pool.
You are not ready for me.
What makes you think I'll dignify your tangents with a response?
Because neither of us can run away. That was the agreement.
Failure to answer seems suspect.
Do you believe The Gospels are trustworthy or not?
You asked me for my attack. I've given it to you. Defend that, not this red herring you've invented.
What attack? What red herring did I invent?
The Bible is a record of history. I already told you that you can use ANY source whatsoever so long as it is within two centuries of the crucifixion.
I agree that the Bible is a recorded history.
I'm talking about you fabricating things and accusing me of saying things I hadn't said.
Such as? Where did I do such a thing?
Ask apologists. They're the ones who came up with the "Why die for a lie?" argument.
I'm not familiar with this argument and I'm not compelled at the moment to check it out. Unless you feel there is a point to make debating something you don't agree with and something I'm not familiar with or agree with.
It's not speculation. It's a challenge. Find a few counter-examples. At least one but a few would be preferred.
No my friend. You made the claim, the burden is on you but you admit "Of course I'm not familiar with all known history."
Your claim is a fallacy.
You asked for an attack. I gave it. You're supposed to defend it, but instead you're just standing there flatfooted without a clue what is even happening.
What attack am I flatfooted without a clue about?
The statements are a challenge. Exactly what you asked for. Are you always like this? Do you go into a restaurant, order a burger, and then express confusion when one is served to you?
What part of my position have you attacked?
Because you have made a claim which is a logical fallacy. You claim that such a person who you described does not exist in known or recorded history.
I pulled you up on it and you admit "Of course I'm not familiar with all known history."
Your claim is redundant due to a logical fallacy.
Thanks, I will cherish your pity.
You are welcome friend.
The two main things we've been talking about this whole time.
I would like you to clarify what these 2 main things are? Go back and check out our discussion. I have.
Huh? I'm not saying I know my points have failed. I'm merely inviting you to disprove them.
Well let's see how you react to this post. Invitation was accepted and points have been disproved.
What say you
Not all of history. Christian history during the first two centuries. You shouldn't even have to scour history. Talk to apologists.
I'm all good. I know God exists and I put my trust in Him,and His Word. I'm convinced and Spirit filled.
That is a better one, indeed. You're right. Quite the knee slapper.
Well.
Are you willing to come to God through His way; to get the proof or what have you done to get the proof that Jesus is Salvation?