Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You were gutted and filleted about this in Reply 16542. Suggest you start there.

No because you confuse folk memory with living memory. You are therefore directing the conclusion to where you want it to go.

I'm afraid I can see through sly engineering like that.

[Gordon]

No because you confuse folk memory with living memory. You are therefore directing the conclusion to where you want it to go.

I'm afraid I can see through sly engineering like that.

Now you've introduced two types of memory, which I don't think BHS raised as a specific point, so I think you need to unpack what these are, how they differ and what the relevance is. Please include how you identified and reviewed these memories, such as the sources and details, and explain how you assessed the risks of mistake, exaggeration and lies being factors in these recollections.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No because you confuse folk memory with living memory. You are therefore directing the conclusion to where you want it to go.

I'm afraid I can see through sly engineering like that.

First, you’ve completely ignored the first half of Reply 16542 that falsifies your continual argumentum ad consequentiam efforts.

Why?

Second, folk memory vs living memory doesn’t help you. Even if the claim is that the person who finally wrote it down spoke to an actual eye witness, personal memory is a notoriously unreliable tool – especially decades after the event:

https://www.thoughtco.com/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-250498

Third, the reliability of memory is just one of several problems I set out in Reply 16542 – albeit that you just ignored the rest.

Why?

Fourth, the only category error so far is still your conflation of a naturalistic phenomenon (moon landing) with a supernatural one (resurrection).

To put it another way, there is not “sly engineering” on my part – just your usual avoidance of the arguments that gut and fillet your position. 

[Alan Burns]

Therefore, in the absence of any meaningful risk-assessment, it seems that the NT material is indistinguishable from fiction.

Why on earth should I need do a risk assessment on the knowledge of God who loves me and has made Himself known to me?

And can you honestly equate the NT with fiction written in the first century AD?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, you’ve completely ignored the first half of Reply 16542 that falsifies your continual argumentum ad consequentiam efforts.

Why?

Second, folk memory vs living memory doesn’t help you. Even if the claim is that the person who finally wrote it down spoke to an actual eye witness, personal memory is a notoriously unreliable tool – especially decades after the event:

https://www.thoughtco.com/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-250498

Third, the reliability of memory is just one of several problems I set out in Reply 16542 – albeit that you just ignored the rest.

Why?

Fourth, the only category error so far is still your conflation of a naturalistic phenomenon (moon landing) with a supernatural one (resurrection).

To put it another way, there is not “sly engineering” on my part – just your usual avoidance of the arguments that gut and fillet your position.

Hillside
Folk memory is not at all relevant in a time period which includes living memory.
It is something quite different.

Secondly is your story, loaded as it is with muddying the waters etc relevant to the epistoliary evidence? Answer not really because you have loaded it with flourishes vis 'my uncle talking to someones granddad, who knew some one'that seek to steer the tale.

Thirdly a resurrected human is perfectly measurable by science, totally possible in a material universe where life equals a particular order of matter energy and a highly improbable event for which impossibility and I grant you supernaturality is er, impossible to establish.

That aside I am saying that it is you people who are claiming either mass mistake or a conspiracy and that puts you in the same position of any conspiracy theorist.

If you are suggesting multiple eyewitness is useless as a tool I would try to apply that to where it is constantly applied and see where you get with it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why on earth should I need do a risk assessment on the knowledge of God who loves me and has made Himself known to me?

And can you honestly equate the NT with fiction written in the first century AD?

The risk assessment for history is to examine the evidence not dismiss a priori because you think it's all bollocks.

These are historical documents have you even analysed them yourself.

The subsequent history fits namely the establishment of a community which is prepared to constantly challenge itself to go through the facts. Vis Paul's exhortation to doubters.

Since this is in the NT we have to ask why these old minutes of business in the early Christian community are included rather than the expected flannel and cover up.

In terms of Hillsides not writing stuff down how does he know given the issue of extant works in ancient history.

So that is the risk assessment.

Epistles written within living memory,
A means of verification at the time....The 500
The failure of hostile authorities to establish conspiracy.
The establishment of a community of orthodox believers
Communities of heterodox communities.

You now need to provide the alternative history you have been inferring.

[Gordon]

Why on earth should I need do a risk assessment on the knowledge of God who loves me and has made Himself known to me?

It is possible you are being misled: have you checked?.

And can you honestly equate the NT with fiction written in the first century AD?

Just fiction in general: presumably people living in the first century CE were just as capable of making mistakes, exaggerating or telling lies as any other people living in different times (before or since).

[Gordon]

The risk assessment for history is to examine the evidence not dismiss a priority because you think it's all bollocks.

These are historical documents have you even analysed them yourself.

The subsequent history fits namely the establishment of a community which is prepared to constantly challenge itself to go through the facts. Vis Paul's exhortation to doubters.

Since this is in the NT we have to ask why these old minutes of business in the early Christian community are included rather than the expected flannel and cover up.

In terms of Hillsides not writing stuff down how does he know given the issue of extant works in ancient history.

So that is the risk assessment.

Epistles written within living memory,
A means of verification at the time....The 500
The failure of hostile authorities to establish conspiracy.
The establishment of a community of orthodox believers
Communities of heterodox communities.

You now need to provide the alternative history you have been inferring.

Or put more simply: you haven't considered that the divine bits of the NT (walking on water, not staying dead etc) might be propaganda for Jesus. Since it is a risk, and from this distance you've no way of mitigating this risk, then the risk remains - would you agree?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is possible you are being misled: have you checked?.

I'm sure he will have checked
The epistles
The early Christian communities
The early heterodox communities unconnected and indeed shunned by the orthodox community attesting to Jesus but at odds with the theological significance.
Failure of authorities establishing fraud.
Failure of any supposed conspiracy to collapse.

Is it possible that YOU are misled....Have YOU checked?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or put more simply: you haven't considered that the divine bits of the NT (walking on water, not staying dead etc) might be propaganda for Jesus. Since it is a risk, and from this distance you've no way of mitigating this risk, then the risk remains - would you agree?

Why, Why, Why?

Why is the witness sample so large?
Have you not seen the research on the duration of conspiracies.
Why was this not done and dusted at a closer distance in time?

Your gullibility theory has been absolutely challenged.

[Gordon]

Hillside
Folk memory is not at all relevant in a time period which includes living memory.
It is something quite different.

So, are you saying there is no risk that people today might incorrectly recall what happened to them last week, or even tell lies about what they did last week?

Secondly is your story, loaded as it is with muddying the waters etc relevant to the epistoliary evidence? Answer not really because you have loaded it with flourishes vis 'my uncle talking to someones granddad, who knew some one'that seek to steer the tale.

Nope - your sources are inadequate as accurate history since they are anecdotal, of uncertain provenance, retrospective (by decades at least) and you can't eliminate the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies - then you have the fantastic nature of some of the claims.

Thirdly a resurrected human is perfectly measurable by science, totally possible in a material universe where life equals a particular order of matter energy and a highly improbable event for which impossibility and I grant you supernaturality is er, impossible to establish.

Just wrong: ask any undertaker to confirm that 2/3 days dead people do stay dead.

That aside I am saying that it is you people who are claiming either mass mistake or a conspiracy and that puts you in the same position of any conspiracy theorist.

Mistakes, exaggeration and lies are known risks when it comes to people and causes (be they for or against): tell me, do you believe everything you hear or read?

If you are suggesting multiple eyewitness is useless as a tool I would try to apply that to where it is constantly applied and see where you get with it.

When it comes to fantastic claims, especially when the 'there were eye-witnesses' is part of the claim and you've no idea regarding the integrity, or otherwise, and biases of the anonymous person whose account you're considering, it would pay to be a tad sceptical in these circumstances.

[BeRational]

Eye witness testimony is one of the weakest and worst form of evidence due to it being very inaccurate and subject to change over time.

I saw a documentary where a lecture was being given to police personnel when a staged event took place on the stage. The people later giving eye witness testimonials were very different from each other and some were way off what actually happened. Some could not get the sequence of events nor the number of people in the incident correct.
It was designed to show that eye witness testimony seems good when actually it is terrible.
The cameras shooting the event on the other hand did a brilliant job!

[Gordon]

I'm sure he will have checked
The epistles
The early Christian communities
The early heterodox communities unconnected and indeed shunned by the orthodox community attesting to Jesus but at odds with the theological significance.
Failure of authorities establishing fraud.
Failure of any supposed conspiracy to collapse.

A couple of problems here: how do you know the epistles aren't flawed, since I can see no basis to check short of time travel and since different communities have different sincerely-held religious traditions, and that there is no contemporary evidence  that the authorities at the time of Jesus saw his execution as anything other than routine.

Is it possible that YOU are misled....Have YOU checked?

I don't need to: I'm not supporting anything in the NT since I think the risks of mistake, exaggeration and lies are such that the non-trivial content is indistinguishable from fiction.

It is for you guys who do support the NT and seemingly accept it without any apparent inclination to assess these risks that leads me to to think that; a) you guys are foolishly naive, b) you are indulging in wholescale special pleading (with other associated fallacies), and c) the divine claims about Jesus are no more than religious superstitions and myth that can't be taken seriously as history.

So, I'll ask again, what steps have you taken to assess the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies in the NT content? 

[Gordon]

Why, Why, Why?

Why is the witness sample so large?

Reports of large numbers of witnesses, Vlad, so how do you know this is true: could someone writing an account not just say there were lots of witnesses when there weren't, and how could you check? This isn't a new problem and even today there are differences in the estimations of numbers of people attending/witnessing, Trump's inauguration being a recent example.

Have you not seen the research on the duration of conspiracies.

Perhaps you can tell us why the risk of mistake, exaggeration and lies don't apply to the NT given the uncertain provenance and fantastical claims: since you are supporting the NT surely you have a position on this that would stand scrutiny. 

Why was this not done and dusted at a closer distance in time?

Presumably because back then religious affiliations were more ubiquitous and people were more credulous regarding religious claims.

Your gullibility theory has been absolutely challenged.

No it hasn't: all you're doing is indulging in special pleading on behalf of Christian beliefs and traditions in order to avoid agreeing that you have no basis to exclude the risks of mistake, exaggeration and lies. This is why the claim that Jesus was resurrected having been dead is a faith position and not a historical fact, since for it to be the latter you'd have to deal with those pesky risks (of  mistake, exaggeration and lies).

[BeRational]

Is the life of Jesus taught in history lessons?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Folk memory is not at all relevant in a time period which includes living memory.

It is something quite different.

Nope. Lots of these stories were told and re-told and re-told again. Just say though that a genuine eye witness decided to travel some 800 miles to Corinth, that he had perfect memory of an event a generation earlier and no biases to cloud it, that he was brave enough to front up the church’s founder, and that Paul was scrupulously honest. Just suppose all that was true, however unlikely – still you’d have no means to determine whether this witness was correct in his explanation, or rather was mistaken, duped etc.

It’s an awful thin basis for a religious faith ain’t it. 

Secondly is your story, loaded as it is with muddying the waters etc relevant to the epistoliary evidence?

Pointing out the problems with your confidence in the account of the event isn’t muddying the waters – it’s just pointing out the problems with your confidence in the account of the event.

Answer not really because you have loaded it with flourishes vis 'my uncle talking to someones granddad, who knew some one'that seek to steer the tale.

Yeah that’s the thing with hearsay – stories that are re-told tend to change in the re-telling, especially when each person in the chain wants to impress his listener. It’s actually worse than that though: when the first small change occurs it becomes embedded, then the next small change is only small compared with the already embedded version and so on until, in a very few steps, the story becomes unrecognisable from the original.

Thirdly a resurrected human is perfectly measurable by science…

None of which was available to the people who thought they’d seen a resurrection though remember?

…totally possible in a material universe where life equals a particular order of matter energy…

But not possible according to our current understanding of human biology remember?

…and a highly improbable event for which impossibility and I grant you supernaturality is er, impossible to establish.

So you have witness accounts which in their very nature are highly unreliable for an event that would be highly improbable.

And you want to rest a religious faith on that?

Really?

That aside…

“That aside” has just collapsed completely, but OK…

I am saying that it is you people who are claiming either mass mistake or a conspiracy and that puts you in the same position of any conspiracy theorist.

Then you’re lying again. What “we people” are actually saying is that you have no means to distinguish your claim from these (and various other possible) explanations.

If you are suggesting multiple eyewitness is useless as a tool I would try to apply that to where it is constantly applied and see where you get with it.

What “multiple eyewitness” accounts? All you have is a tiny number of witnesses (at best) who said there were 500 witnesses – a very different matter.

So, are you saying there is no risk that people today might incorrectly recall what happened to them last week, or even tell lies about what they did last week?

Er, no – I’m saying the opposite of that. Personal memory – especially long after the claimed event – is notoriously unreliable. That’s your problem, and even if you had a way to eliminate it you’d still have no means to eliminate the possibility of a perfect memory of an inaccurate explanation.

Apart from all that though…

Oh, and given your total radio silence on the matter can I take it that you have now finally given up on your argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy?

[torridon]

Why on earth should I need do a risk assessment on the knowledge of God who loves me and has made Himself known to me?

A god that loves you enough to make himself known to you presumably does not love others so much, and is therefore not god, but some lesser being, one that practises bizarre random discrimination seemingly.

[SusanDoris]

Quote from: Alan Burns on April 09, 2017, 06:42:50 PM
Why on earth should I need do a risk assessment on the knowledge of God who loves me and has made Himself known to me

A god that loves you enough to make himself known to you presumably does not love others so much, and is therefore not god, but some lesser being, one that practises bizarre random discrimination seemingly.

AB's words show that he thinks he is special, but it also sounds selfish I think, bearing in mind he lives in a safe and comfortable place with all the benefits to which we have access.   

[Alan Burns]

So, I'll ask again, what steps have you taken to assess the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies in the NT content?

But have you seriously considered the risk of missing out on the eternal salvation of your human soul?

[Alan Burns]

AB's words show that he thinks he is special, but it also sounds selfish I think, bearing in mind he lives in a safe and comfortable place with all the benefits to which we have access.

God loves you too, Susan
We are all special in the eyes of God

[Gordon]

But have you seriously considered the risk of missing out on the eternal salvation of your human soul?

No, and leaving aside your use of the reification fallacy, since what you are saying here doesn't merit serious consideration: you may as well ask me if I think Noddy likes living in Toytown.

So, back to the question you avoided answering, which was what steps have you taken to assess the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies in the NT content?

[Stranger]

But have you seriously considered the risk of missing out on the eternal salvation of your human soul?

Have you seriously considered the risk that you believe in the wrong god and the real one will condemn you to hell for what you believe?

[Alan Burns]

No, and leaving aside your use of the reification fallacy, since what you are saying here doesn't merit serious consideration: you may as well ask me if I think Noddy likes living in Toytown.

But you yourself would appear to be using a reification fallacy in proclaiming the likelihood of a soul's eternal salvation to that of Noddy living in Toytown.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you yourself would appear to be using a reification fallacy in proclaiming the likelihood of a soul's eternal salvation to that of Noddy living in Toytown.

That's not what "reification fallacy" means, and in the absence of cogent arguments for "soul", "salvation" etc what's actually being said is that the claims for them are epistemically equivalent to those for Noddy etc.

[Nearly Sane]

But you yourself would appear to be using a reification fallacy in proclaiming the likelihood of a soul's eternal salvation to that of Noddy living in Toytown.

This shows a comolete misunderstanding of Gordon's post and the reification fallacy. Gordon is not traeting Noddy as real. Or dealing in the question of probabilities but stating that  for him souls and salvatiom are not real. The reification fallacy is about treating abstract concepts as concrete.