Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Proposal 1 and 2 are not contradictory,…

Yes they are.

…that's your category error. Both are possible at the same time, because the idea of cause in your proposals aren't exclusionary.

This is a bit like claiming the statement “finding a good man is like finding a needle in a haystack” is a category error because men and needles are different categories of object. The point here isn’t the subjects of the proposals, it’s the characteristics of the arguments and evidence for and against them. To save you the trouble of finding more rabbit holes to dive into though, let me make it clearer still:

Proposal X is justified with arguments that have been falsified, and has no supporting evidence at all.     

Proposal Y is justified by arguments that have not been falsified, and has ample supporting evidence.

Confronted with both proposals I would conclude that one is true and the other is not true, and I would call these beliefs “knowledge”.

Why wouldn’t you?     

What evidence do you have that the 'world' is non purposive? Indeed, how would you be able identify evidence that the world is non purposive?

See above. I would rely on:

1. The falsification of the arguments that it’s purposive and the no-falsification of the arguments that it isn’t; and

2. The absence of evidence for a purposive world and the abundance of evidence for a non-purposive world. 

Again, why wouldn’t you?

[jeremyp]

It would be if your statement was true for that part.
The cause in Proposal 1 is based on a materialist viewpoint which does not exclude the cause in Proposal 2.

It's also irrelevant to the question of non purposive/purposive which is the actual discussion.

It does actually. If space-time is warped in the way general relativity says, there's no need for pixies or strings to do any pulling at all.

[Nearly Sane]

It does actually. If space-time is warped in the way general relativity says, there's no need for pixies or strings to do any pulling at all.

The pixies are doing it supernaturally, you just see the first proposal because you have no method to determine the supernatural, therefore they are not contradictory.

And again, that's still nothing to do with the main discussion re non purposive/purposive

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes they are.

This is a bit like claiming the statement “finding a good man is like finding a needle in a haystack” is a category error because men and needles are different categories of object. The point here isn’t the subjects of the proposals, it’s the characteristics of the arguments and evidence for and against them. To save you the trouble of finding more rabbit holes to dive into though, let me make it clearer still:

Proposal X is justified with arguments that have been falsified, and has no supporting evidence at all.     

Proposal Y is justified by arguments that have not been falsified, and has ample supporting evidence.

Confronted with both proposals I would conclude that one is true and the other is not true, and I would call these beliefs “knowledge”.

Why wouldn’t you?     

See above. I would rely on:

1. The falsification of the arguments that it’s purposive and the no-falsification of the arguments that it isn’t; and

2. The absence of evidence for a purposive world and the abundance of evidence for a non-purposive world. 

Again, why wouldn’t you?

What evidence for a non purposive 'world'? How could you tell the difference between a something that doesn't have a purpose, and something that has a purpose you don't know but behaves in exactly the same way?

[jeremyp]

The pixies are doing it supernaturally, you just see the first proposal because you have no method to determine the supernatural, therefore they are not contradictory.

And again, that's still nothing to do with the main discussion re non purposive/purposive

As I said before, if GE is correct, there is no need for pixies or strings.

Also, "supernatural" as a concept is incoherent. It's really just another version of the god of the gaps.

[Nearly Sane]

As I said before, if GE is correct, there is no need for pixies or strings.

Also, "supernatural" as a concept is incoherent. It's really just another version of the god of the gaps.

'Not need' does not mean in contradiction. If the supernatural is  incoherent then the argument that would have you a reason not to believe it is justifying that, not that you have an explanation under a material methodology.


And it's still got nothing to do with the non purpisive/purposive main discussion. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What evidence for a non purposive 'world'? How could you tell the difference between a something that doesn't have a purpose, and something that has a purpose you don't know but behaves in exactly the same way?

In exactly the same way I can tell the difference between gravity being an effect of the warping of spacetime and it being an effect of pixies with very small strings.

All of the objections you're trying here ("but it's a claim of the supernatural") apply equally to the gravity example, but – like me – you believe the spacetime explanation to be true and the pixies one to be false, and (presumably) you call your conclusions about this "knowledge". As each proposition behaves in exactly the same way too though, how do you know the difference?     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

In exactly the same way I can tell the difference between gravity being an effect of the warping of spacetime and it being an effect of pixies with very small strings.

All of the objections you're trying here ("but it's a claim of the supernatural") apply equally to the gravity example, but – like me – you believe the spacetime explanation to be true and the pixies one to be false, and (presumably) you call your conclusions about this "knowledge". As each proposition behaves in exactly the same way too though, how do you know the difference?   

So the evidence shows it's a non purposive world because you say that it does and you call something knowledge because you believe it


And I don't think purposive is necessarily a supernatural claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So the evidence shows it's a non purposive world because you say that it is and you call something knowledge because you believe it

No, I call it "knowledge" because I believe it to be true BUT on the basis of the justifications I have for it. And guess what – so do you, which is why you believe yourself to have knowledge about the cause of gravity that does not include pixies. Do you think that's knowledge just because you say it is too? Why not?

The trick you seem to be trying here is to rely on the impossibility of "evidence" for the non-existence of something (invisible elephants, black swans, gravity pixies, purposive world, whatever) to critique a claim to knowledge about the absence of these things. Outside of pure logic that doesn't work though because we have to live in the real world in which the word "knowledge" needs to mean something. There is literally no claim to knowledge about anything at all that you couldn't counter with, "but how do you know it's not supernatural X instead?" so as a pragmatic matter it's legitimate to call, say, warped spacetime causing  gravity and pixies not causing gravity "knowledge".

As I think I said to you a while back, "knowledge" doesn't imply certainty. If ever someone produces a picture of, say, a pixie holding something down with string then I'd be forced to accept that my previous claim of knowledge about that was wrong, and I'd have a new claim of knowledge instead.

Why do you keep avoiding the problem that you actually agree with this - you think your belief in warped spacetime causing gravity is just as much knowledge for you as I think it is for me, so why not ask yourself the same questions about that belief that you keep asking me?               

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, I call it "knowledge" because I believe it to be true BUT on the basis of the justifications I have for it. And guess what – so do you, which is why you believe yourself to have knowledge about the cause of gravity that does not include pixies. Do you think that's knowledge just because you say it is too? Why not?

The trick you seem to be trying here is to rely on the impossibility of "evidence" for the non-existence of something (invisible elephants, black swans, gravity pixies, purposive world, whatever) to critique a claim to knowledge about the absence of these things. Outside of pure logic that doesn't work though because we have to live in the real world in which the word "knowledge" needs to mean something. There is literally no claim to knowledge about anything at all that you couldn't counter with, "but how do you know it's not supernatural X instead?" so as a pragmatic matter it's legitimate to call, say, warped spacetime causing  gravity and pixies not causing gravity "knowledge".

As I think I said to you a while back, "knowledge" doesn't imply certainty. If ever someone produces a picture of, say, a pixie holding something down with string then I'd be forced to accept that my previous claim of knowledge about that was wrong, and I'd have a new claim of knowledge instead.

Why do you keep avoiding the problem that you actually agree with this - you think your belief in warped spacetime causing gravity is just as much knowledge for you as I think it is for me, so why not ask yourself the same questions about that belief that you keep asking me?               

No, I don't agree with it. And none of that addresses the question of non purposive/purposive world, and definitely isn't the evidence and reason that you claim to have about a non purposive world.

[Spud]

Which brings me back to my earlier comment.

If this actually did happen (along with all sorts of other claimed miracles, with literally thousands of claimed witnesses) how come christianity failed to get any significant foothold amongst those very people.

If there were all these eye witnesses to astonishing miracles, how come christianity failed to get any meaningful foothold in the place where it arose (where those eye witnesses actually lived). Those most likely to have been witnesses to Jesus' life and teaching by and large did not accept that he was anything special, did not accept him to be the son of god, did not join the developing christian movement. Weird if they were witnesses to astonishing miracles!

Because according to the NT Jesus was no longer physically around for them to see. It does say that many were converted in the aftermath of the resurrection.

[Gordon]

Because according to the NT Jesus was no longer physically around for them to see. It does say that many were converted in the aftermath of the resurrection.

Perhaps you need to be a little more cautious, Spud, when it comes to taking "according to the NT" seriously or literally.

[Spud]

Perhaps you need to be a little more cautious, Spud, when it comes to taking "according to the NT" seriously or literally.

Is it not a valid answer to prof's questions though? You also said,

My guess is that the propaganda and theobollocks didn't get added until much later - this being one or the risks if mistakes and lies cannot be meaningfully excluded.

Peter Williams did a talk on this which I started a thread on, several years ago.
Your idea is that gradually over time people exaggerated the accounts and so Jesus eventually had miracles attributed to him.
One problem with this is it is unlikely this would have happened with the large number of miracles we are told about. Another problem is that this sort of process, where information is corrupted over time, doesn't corrupt information selectively. We would expect the attention to detail (of which there is much) to have been corrupted as well.
Lastly, if the gospels were written by people who were geographically far removed from the events then the attention to detail that we find, is not what we would expect.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Is it not a valid answer to prof's questions though? You also said,Peter Williams did a talk on this which I started a thread on, several years ago.
Your idea is that gradually over time people exaggerated the accounts and so Jesus eventually had miracles attributed to him.
One problem with this is it is unlikely this would have happened with the large number of miracles we are told about. Another problem is that this sort of process, where information is corrupted over time, doesn't corrupt information selectively. We would expect the attention to detail (of which there is much) to have been corrupted as well.
Lastly, if the gospels were written by people who were geographically far removed from the events then the attention to detail that we find, is not what we would expect.

Attention to detail is begging the question as you are assuming that it's correct.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, I don't agree with it. And none of that addresses the question of non purposive/purposive world, and definitely isn't the evidence and reason that you claim to have about a non purposive world.

You’re confusing evidence with proof. Axiomatically I cannot prove the absence of a purposive world, of pixies or of anything else. What I can do though is to call the various methods I referred to a while back (Occam’s razor, absence of justifying evidence etc) as evidence on which to base a claim of knowledge.

If you insist on pursuing the line “but how would you know it’s not a supernatural X with the same effect instead?” however, then you’re also arguing that there can be no such thing as knowledge. If that is your intention then we part company there.         

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’re confusing evidence with proof. Axiomatically I cannot prove the absence of a purposive world, of pixies or of anything else. What I can do though is to call the various methods I referred to a while back (Occam’s razor, absence of justifying evidence etc) as evidence on which to base a claim of knowledge.

If you insist on pursuing the line “but how would you know it’s not a supernatural X with the same effect instead?” however, then you’re also arguing that there can be no such thing as knowledge. If that is your intention then we part company there.       

No, I'm just asking for your evidence about non purposive vs purposive. Why aren't you providing any?

And, I'd refer you back to me having said that purposive doesn't necessarily mean supernatural. It's one of the reasons why I think the pixies gravity analogy doesn't work.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because according to the NT Jesus was no longer physically around for them to see. It does say that many were converted in the aftermath of the resurrection.

But again you are just hitting up agains the issue.

We know, including from proper historical and archeological evidence, that christianity didn't get any kind of serious foothold in the place where it arose - Judea/Jerusalem, amongst the people who are purported to have been witnesses to the 'miracles'. In fact for decades christianity remained a little followed obscure sect of judaism.

Yet if you read the NT there are claims of thousands of people having been witnesses to amazing miracles. And in terms of the overall population of Judea at the time and assuming each actual witness told a couple of others you'd have close to half the population having been first hand or second hand witnesses to astonishing miracles. Yet by and large their response was not to be impressed enough to actually follow this new jewish sect, but to reject that sect and carry on as they had done previously.

The NT itself rather gives itself away - there is a claim that at the time the Jerusalem church (absolutely at the heart of the developing christianity) was established there were only 120 believers. This small number fits with the historical evidence on the development of early christianity. That's a quite astonishing (and frankly unbelievable) attrition rate if more that 500 witnessed the resurrected Jesus in one place, thousand benefited from miraculous food, hundreds were witnessed to raising from the dead, healing from the blind etc.

If, as the historical record suggests, so few people actually were believers in the early days it strongly suggests that the claimed miracles and the claimed number of witnesses are massive exaggerations of what actually happened.

[Spud]

But again you are just hitting up agains the issue.

We know, including from proper historical and archeological evidence, that christianity didn't get any kind of serious foothold in the place where it arose - Judea/Jerusalem, amongst the people who are purported to have been witnesses to the 'miracles'. In fact for decades christianity remained a little followed obscure sect of judaism.

Yet if you read the NT there are claims of thousands of people having been witnesses to amazing miracles. And in terms of the overall population of Judea at the time and assuming each actual witness told a couple of others you'd have close to half the population having been first hand or second hand witnesses to astonishing miracles. Yet by and large their response was not to be impressed enough to actually follow this new jewish sect, but to reject that sect and carry on as they had done previously.

The NT itself rather gives itself away - there is a claim that at the time the Jerusalem church (absolutely at the heart of the developing christianity) was established there were only 120 believers. This small number fits with the historical evidence on the development of early christianity. That's a quite astonishing (and frankly unbelievable) attrition rate if more that 500 witnessed the resurrected Jesus in one place, thousand benefited from miraculous food, hundreds were witnessed to raising from the dead, healing from the blind etc.

If, as the historical record suggests, so few people actually were believers in the early days it strongly suggests that the claimed miracles and the claimed number of witnesses are massive exaggerations of what actually happened.

Interesting way of looking at it, but think about it: he'd been crucified, and everybody knew it. Acts says that three thousand were converted after Peter's speech; these were people who had witnessed the miracles. But it also tells us later that many fell away because of persecution and pressure to continue with Jewish traditions. The rest of the Bible consistently says that a remnant will be saved, with occasional times of revival. So we wouldn't expect a great number of converts except on occasions; I don't think the argument you're making is particularly strong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, I'm just asking for your evidence about non purposive vs purposive. Why aren't you providing any?

Yes, “evidence” just means “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”:

https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence&oq=evidence&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyDAgAEEUYORixAxiABDINCAEQABiDARixAxiABDIKCAIQABixAxiABDIHCAMQABiABDIKCAQQABixAxiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCA

The reasons I’ve given you (and others) are the “available body of facts or information” I’m aware of that lead me to conclude that the world is non-purposive, and I call this belief “knowledge”. 

And, I'd refer you back to me having said that purposive doesn't necessarily mean supernatural. It's one of the reasons why I think the pixies gravity analogy doesn't work.

But you did try the “how would you know it’s not a supernatural agent with the same effect?” line which is entirely irrelevant, as would be a non-supernatural possibility too. Material aliens could have created the world as it is purposively, but there’s nothing in the “available body of facts or information” to indicate that they did so it’s reasonable to call it knowledge not to believe that they did.   

You keep ducking the problem you’re giving yourself here: if you think just the possibility of a different cause for an observed phenomenon (whether natural or supernatural) negates any claim to knowledge, then there can be no claim to knowledge. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, “evidence” just means “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”:

https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence&oq=evidence&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyDAgAEEUYORixAxiABDINCAEQABiDARixAxiABDIKCAIQABixAxiABDIHCAMQABiABDIKCAQQABixAxiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCA

The reasons I’ve given you (and others) are the “available body of facts or information” I’m aware of that lead me to conclude that the world is non-purposive, and I call this belief “knowledge”. 

But you did try the “how would you know it’s not a supernatural agent with the same effect?” line which is entirely irrelevant, as would be a non-supernatural possibility too. Material aliens could have created the world as it is purposively, but there’s nothing in the “available body of facts or information” to indicate that they did so it’s reasonable to call it knowledge not to believe that they did.   

You keep ducking the problem you’re giving yourself here: if you think just the possibility of a different cause for an observed phenomenon (whether natural or supernatural) negates any claim to knowledge, then there can be no claim to knowledge.

And again no evidence or reasoning about non purposive vs purposive 'world'.

I pointed out as regard the analogy that it the proposals were different because of the supernatural claim of pixies. That was an internal problem to it.

I also pointed out that it isn't relevantly analogous to the non purposive vs purposive discussion in part because it's includes the element of the supernatural and that isn't the case with the your positive, and as yet unjustified claim, about it being a non purpisive world and there being evidence and reasoning against it being purposive.

And since I haven't said 'the possibility of a different cause for an observed phenomenon (whether natural or supernatural) negates any claim to knowledge'", I'm not ducking it.

I have no reason to believe the 'world' is purposive. For you have evidence and reasoning to justify your belief that it is not purposive?

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting way of looking at it, but think about it: he'd been crucified, and everybody knew it. Acts says that three thousand were converted after Peter's speech; these were people who had witnessed the miracles. But it also tells us later that many fell away because of persecution and pressure to continue with Jewish traditions. The rest of the Bible consistently says that a remnant will be saved, with occasional times of revival. So we wouldn't expect a great number of converts except on occasions; I don't think the argument you're making is particularly strong.

I don't think it is an 'interesting' way of looking at it, I think it is an obvious way of looking at it.

If all these people were converted to the new sect of judaism how come christianity hardly made any headway in Judea in those early decade, realistically just a rump of a handful of believers.

And the whole persecution thing isn't backed up be historical evidence - christianity as an obscure jewish sect was well tolerated by the authorities in the early decades in Judea (where those purported 'witnesses' lived, who by and large didn't convert). Note that the only accounts of persecution are in the NT itself, which is hardly an unbiased source. The jewish and other non-christian accounts at the same time are largely silent on this matter, albeit they do allude to later persecution, largely in places distant from Judea and at a time when christianity had broken from judaism and was attempting to gain gentile converts.

But of course this would not be relevant to the judean jewish population from CE30 to CE50 - the ones who would have witnessed Jesus' teaching and 'miracles' purportedly in their thousands yet rejected Jesus as anything special beyond a handful of hardcore believers.

It doesn't add up, does it Spud.

[Outrider]

think about it: he'd been crucified, and everybody knew it. Acts says that three thousand were converted after Peter's speech; these were people who had witnessed the miracles.

No, these were people someone forty to sixty years after the fact wanted to suggest witnessed a crucifiction. A crucifiction isn't a miracle. A passionate speech isn't a miracle. Acts isn't a guarantee the event happened at all.

But it also tells us later that many fell away because of persecution and pressure to continue with Jewish traditions.

Which might be true, but it might also be a post hoc rationalisation of why there were so few believers at the time of the writing.

The rest of the Bible consistently says that a remnant will be saved, with occasional times of revival.

In part because it has been repeatedly edited to attempt to create a higher degree of internal consistency.

O.

[Spud]

Attention to detail is begging the question as you are assuming that it's correct.

In the lecture I mentioned, Peter Williams presented evidence that the gospel writers got the details right.

[Spud]

No, these were people someone forty to sixty years after the fact wanted to suggest witnessed a crucifiction. A crucifiction isn't a miracle. A passionate speech isn't a miracle. Acts isn't a guarantee the event happened at all.

Which might be true, but it might also be a post hoc rationalisation of why there were so few believers at the time of the writing.

In part because it has been repeatedly edited to attempt to create a higher degree of internal consistency.

O.

The point is that the people who did witness the crucifixion , or knew it to have happend, would in general be unlikely to believe in the resurrection, because Jesus didn't physically appear to most of them. Hence why Christianity didn't 'spread like wildfire' among the Jews in Palestine.

[Gordon]

In the lecture I mentioned, Peter Williams presented evidence that the gospel writers got the details right.

Did he have the CCTV footage to hand then?