Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[2PhiloVoid]

So you claim it is ridiculous, even though there are Biblical scholars who you accept as valid who claim otherwise.

Right. Exactly. You catch on very quickly. My affirmation of a scholar's credentials and allowing them a place at the table of discussion for rational analysis and deliberation over their arguments doesn't mean I'm automatically obligated to agree with any of them; being qualified is one thing, but being right---or knowing one is right---or quite another issue altogether, Ms. Kylie.

I'm simply pointing out that no one invokes faith when trying to determine the amount of energy in subatomic particles when they do tests in particle accelerators, for example. Faith is never invoked, only evidence.

You're right. When doing science, we don't invoke religious faith------but we do invoke trust, and trust in second hand data and evidence, and at times even authority, is a part of Science.

You might better consider that Christian faith as defined in the Bible has to have a trust element based on some evidence as a component of the willingness to believe. It doesn't happen either by magic fiat or by wishful thinking.

Then why not simply present the evidence and let it speak for itself?

I would hazard a guess that it's because the evidence does not speak for itself. Every time I've seen a believer present evidence for their faith being true, I've found that it does not show one particular interpretation is true. It could be consistent with many different interpretations, and the believer decides that it must apply to their particular faith because they've already decided that their faith is true. They're basically saying, "Can this evidence be used to support my faith? Yes it can, even though it can also support other interpretations that are inconsistent with my faith. However, since I want to believe that my faith is correct, I'll conclude that the evidence supports my faith because one of the many interpretations of that evidence is supportive of my faith."

Are you familiar with the Gettier Problem? Are you familiar with the term, Gestalt? Are you aware that not everything in religion can be merely chalked up to the onset of "apophenia"? Are you aware than many phenomena, particularly from the past, are open to various interpretations within the fields of Archaeology and History? Are you aware of the concept of "incomplete evidence"?

For me, I think it's rather simple.

If the evidence can be tested and verified and it passes such testing, then I'll accept it as valid evidence.

Then stick with the physical sciences, Kylie, because you'll never make it as a Historian if that's all you'll accept as "evidence.

I won't accept that evidence as indicating that one particular point of view is correct if that evidence is consistent with other points of view.

That's a choice you'll have to make. It won't be an historically educated choice, but it'll be a choice nevertheless.

You're the one who brought up the topic of bathroom breaks...

Yeah, I did. I'll give you that point.

That's the thing: I DON'T know.

As I pointed out, Biblcal scholars have claimed that the best we can say about Jesus with any degree of certainty is that he was baptised and then crucified. (Given the lack of contemporary accounts, I personally wouldn't even go that far, but let's work on that basis for the purposes of this discussion.)

From what the scholars say, I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that Jesus had disciples, let along what their names were or what they did. SO I don't claim to know that Jesus had disciples.

That was my point. The claim about Jesus having followers because he performed miracles is an extraordinary one, and as such, requires extraordinary evidence. I have not seen such evidence, and as far as I can tell, such evidence does not exist.

Which scholars agree with you that the claim, "Jesus had followers like Peter," should be categorized as an extraordinary claim?????

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The question is "How did God do it?"

True.

And we'll continue on asking that even though the Biblical writer(s) of Genesis seem to be mostly concerned about "Who?" and "Why?"

 

[AV1611VET]

True.

And we'll continue on asking that even though the Biblical writer(s) of Genesis seem to be mostly concerned about "Who?" and "Why?"

Not to mention when, where, in what order, how long, why it took that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

 

[Fervent]

How is it fallacious?

You stated very specifically, "The level of evidence required would be the same, because a claim is a claim is a claim. Incredulity is not an argument in itself, and requiring extra burdens because you find something implausible is nothing more than blatantly invoking special pleading."

So if I claimed a particular event occurred, you would need evidence that shows beyond any doubt that the event really did occur. If you are being intellectually honest, then this must apply for ANY event. Why then do you cry foul when I point out two events I can claim happened for which you would accept very different levels of evidence?

It's fallacious because it relies on a subjective element(whether or not a claim is extraordinary) to alter standards of evidence required. It's eiter special pleading(my claims are ordinary, yours are extraordinary) or it is question begging(assuming prior probabilities are in favor of falsity than truth)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not to mention when, where, in what order, how long, why it took that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Maybe, but like I said, we probably will find we have differences of opinion about the meaning of the first 11 chapters of the Bible.

But that's to be expected since none of us are clones.

 

[dlamberth]

True.

And we'll continue on asking that even though the Biblical writer(s) of Genesis seem to be mostly concerned about "Who?" and "Why?"

I think the question of "How did God do it" is more in line with the OP than "Who and Why".

I think if I went into the "Why", from the perspective of my understands, it wouldn't go over very well here in this forum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the question of "How did God do it" is more in line with the OP than "Who and Why".

I think if I went into the "Why", from the perspective of my understands, it wouldn't go over very well here in this forum.

Maybe so, but I don't think Genesis was written with our 21st century scientific paradigms in mind. And I accept that distinction.

 

[Kylie]

As stated previously, I can no longer extend the necessary assumption of intellectual honesty on your part given your attempt to maintain a fallacious line of argumentation by presenting an emotional argument as if it substantially addressed what I stated about the maxim. You think your personal incredulity gives you warrant to place a greater evidential burden on claims you are suspicious of. And your responses addressed a strawman in that you fixated on the less cogent aspect(followers willing to die) than the more critical comparison of the founders.

What emotional argument have I used? I'm pointing out that both have spread through both faith and violence.

It is also not fallacious to expect extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.

And how is it that the issue of "followers willing to die" is a less important aspect when you are the one who presented it as an important difference between Christianity and Islam in post 2419?

 

[Kylie]

Right. Exactly. You catch on very quickly. My affirmation of a scholar's credentials and allowing them a place at the table of discussion for rational analysis and deliberation over their arguments doesn't mean I'm automatically obligated to agree with any of them; being qualified is one thing, but being right---or knowing one is right---or quite another issue altogether, Ms. Kylie.

So here I am, faced with multiple Biblical scholars who have spent years studying this, they all have multiple texts written about their fields of specialty, they are so well regarded that even you accept them as experts and they all have intensive education and qualifications in the field...

...and there's you who disagrees with them.

Do you have anywhere near the same level of experience as them in this field?

Tell me, why should I not side with the experts here?

Honestly, it's like if there's a dozen doctors who claim you have a particular condition and you need Treatment X, but you remain unconvinced because some celebrity appeared on a talk show and said that waving crystals around your head will fix it.

You're right. When doing science, we don't invoke religious faith------but we do invoke trust, and trust in second hand data and evidence, and at times even authority, is a part of Science.

Nah. Any valid science will show the working, and show the raw data, making it possible for people to see the exact method and results. So people can point out if there was any inaccuracies introduced by a poor method ("When you did this, you failed to account for such and such, and that could bias the results in this particular way") and they can point out if the results were reached through miscalculation of the data.

No need for trust, you can go and see for yourself.

You might better consider that Christian faith as defined in the Bible has to have a trust element based on some evidence as a component of the willingness to believe. It doesn't happen either by magic fiat or by wishful thinking.

And that right there is the problem. How can you know you've reached an accurate conclusion if part of your decision making process is, "It's what I want to believe"?

Are you familiar with the Gettier Problem? Are you familiar with the term, Gestalt? Are you aware that not everything in religion can be merely chalked up to the onset of "apophenia"? Are you aware than many phenomena, particularly from the past, are open to various interpretations within the fields of Archaeology and History? Are you aware of the concept of "incomplete evidence"?

If the evidence is incomplete, why not just admit it and say, "There's insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion about this yet."

Then stick with the physical sciences, Kylie, because you'll never make it as a Historian if that's all you'll accept as "evidence.

Hey, if there's one source that claims that in year X so and so was king, and we find that there are coins with that king's name on it from around that year, the enemy of that king wrote about how he battled that king, there are tax records about taxes paid to that king, historians of the time wrote about that king, how is that not verification?

After all, it's saying, "If this source's claim that so and so was king is true, we should find other contemporary sources that fit in with that," and then we find other sources that fit in with that. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

That's a choice you'll have to make. It won't be an historically educated choice, but it'll be a choice nevertheless.

Right.

So, "Here is the evidence, and it supports position A, position B and Position C, and I'll therefore conclude that it supports Position C because that's what I already believe," is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to you?

Which scholars agree with you that the claim, "Jesus had followers like Peter," should be categorized as an extraordinary claim?????

I was very clearly talking about the performance of miracles as being an extraordinary claim. And let's not forget that according to the Bible, it is such a miracle that causes Peter to follow Jesus.

So it's not a claim about someone who had followers. It's a claim about someone who had followers because those followers were convinced by the miracles he performed. And that is indeed an extraordinary claim.

 

[Kylie]

It's fallacious because it relies on a subjective element(whether or not a claim is extraordinary) to alter standards of evidence required.

Perhaps, but it's not totally subjective, is it? We can go by how likely it is to happen in real life. Something like going to the toilet is a very common event in everyday life, and so it's level of extraordinariness would be very low. Someone who can teleport to anywhere in the world simply by wishing it is extremely UNcommon, and therefore it's extraordinariness would be much higher.

Does this sound unreasonable to you?

It's eiter special pleading(my claims are ordinary, yours are extraordinary) or it is question begging(assuming prior probabilities are in favor of falsity than truth)

Well, I've already shown that the extraordinariness of the claims isn't as subjective as you want them to be. And it seems to me that you are the one who assumes the claims are false until shown otherwise (or you would have accepted my claim that I can close my eyes, wish really hard, and teleport wherever I want.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe so, but I don't think Genesis was written with our 21st century scientific paradigms in mind.

Then why does God call His word "quick"?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Quick means It's alive.

As in up to date.

 

[Fervent]

What emotional argument have I used? I'm pointing out that both have spread through both faith and violence.

It is also not fallacious to expect extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.

And how is it that the issue of "followers willing to die" is a less important aspect when you are the one who presented it as an important difference between Christianity and Islam in post 2419?

The emotional argument was the loaded phrasing comparing claims in order to defend using personal incredulity as an argument.

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps, but it's not totally subjective, is it? We can go by how likely it is to happen in real life. Something like going to the toilet is a very common event in everyday life, and so it's level of extraordinariness would be very low. Someone who can teleport to anywhere in the world simply by wishing it is extremely UNcommon, and therefore it's extraordinariness would be much higher.

Does this sound unreasonable to you?

Except it is almost totally subjective when we're discussing miracles and other phenomena that fall outside of the scope of science. Especially because the only person's "everyday life" we have to draw on is our own, but "skeptics" of the "common sense" sort tend to hang out in echo chambers and never turn that skepticism on what they believe to be true.

Well, I've already shown that the extraordinariness of the claims isn't as subjective as you want them to be. And it seems to me that you are the one who assumes the claims are false until shown otherwise (or you would have accepted my claim that I can close my eyes, wish really hard, and teleport wherever I want.)

All you've shown is that you are fine with using personal incredulity as an argument, so long as it's dressed up as a handy-dandy maxim that's easy to quote.

 

[Kylie]

They why does God call His word "quick"?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Quick means It's alive.

As in up to date.

I once told my tax agent that my paperwork is quick.

They were upset when they had to go through lots of receipts and expenses and it took them over three hours.

"You said your paper work was quick," they said.

And I said, "And it is quick. Don't get upset because I'm using a different definition of 'quick' than the one you were expecting."

And then the paperwork jumped up and ate three pens and a container of paperclips because it was alive.

 

[Kylie]

The emotional argument was the loaded phrasing comparing claims in order to defend using personal incredulity as an argument.

Please quote exactly what I said.

 

[Kylie]

Except it is almost totally subjective when we're discussing miracles and other phenomena that fall outside of the scope of science.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about the scope of science, we're talking about the scope of experience.

Lots of people have experienced going to the loo. Very few people have experienced someone who can teleport by wishing really hard.

Especially because the only person's "everyday life" we have to draw on is our own, but "skeptics" of the "common sense" sort tend to hang out in echo chambers and never turn that skepticism on what they believe to be true.

I think most cultures have an "everyday life" that is much the same. They deal with working their jobs, cooking, family issues, how much money they have to spend, recreation, etc.

I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is. Give me any culture and any time period and I'll find examples of people from the culture facing the same sort of everyday issues that we face today.

All you've shown is that you are fine with using personal incredulity as an argument, so long as it's dressed up as a handy-dandy maxim that's easy to quote.

And you are happy to use that same incredulity when it comes to believing my claim that I can close my eyes and teleport wherever I want by wishing really hard.

 

[Fervent]

Irrelevant. We're not talking about the scope of science, we're talking about the scope of experience.

Lots of people have experienced going to the loo. Very few people have experienced someone who can teleport by wishing really hard.

I think most cultures have an "everyday life" that is much the same. They deal with working their jobs, cooking, family issues, how much money they have to spend, recreation, etc.

I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is. Give me any culture and any time period and I'll find examples of people from the culture facing the same sort of everyday issues that we face today.

And you are happy to use that same incredulity when it comes to believing my claim that I can close my eyes and teleport wherever I want by wishing really hard.

As you continue to insist on trying to defend a fallacious maxim and doing so with loaded language(while casually ignoring that your restriction of what counts as evidence is evidence that is amenable to the scientific method...but we're totally not talking about the scope of science, huh?) I see no point in engagement other than pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. Emotionally loading your argument with phrases like "wishing" while defending personal incredulity as somehow valid(which I bet would be an entirely different story if someone were using the maxim to defend doubting scientific consensus items like evolution because they see it as an extraordinary claim),

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's difficult to nail a spore ......................................... I can't tell which way it's going because everyone keeps gerrymandering and jigging the questions and claims.

What's more, no one as yet has asserted any methodology of any substance, so I'm just kind of doing a skeet shoot as things pop up........

Check with Einstein. He worked out how your spore moves. (Sorry for the science content. I know this is a bible study now.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I once told my tax agent that my paperwork is quick.

From the online etymology dictionary:

QUICK:

"living persons," Old English cwic, from quick (adj.). Frequently paired with the dead, from phrasing in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, as in Middle English þan cwike and þa deaden, Old English cwicum & deadum.

From the 1828 Webster's dictionary:

QUICK:

Primarily, alive; living; opposed to dead or unanimated; as quick flesh. Leviticus 13:10.

The Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead. 2 Timothy 4:1.

[In this sense, the word is obsolete, except in some compounds or in particular phrases.]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Check with Einstein. He worked out how your spore moves. (Sorry for the science content. I know this is a bible study now.)

Thanks for the comic relief, Hans.